The Assembly met at 2.30 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Affairs

Mr Speaker: At the final sitting of the New Northern Ireland Assembly, on Monday 29 November 1999, Mr Peter Robinson asked whether it was appropriate to refer to another Member as a murderer where it was believed that a Member had been responsible for murder. He questioned whether this was unparliamentary language.
He is correct. Where a reference is clearly made in respect of either an individual Member or a group of Members, this would be unparliamentary language, except in the circumstance where the particular Member being referred to had been convicted of the offence by due process and through the courts. There has recently been a circumstance in respect of the analogous term to which the Member referred in another place.
I have studied references made during the last sitting, and, whilst I believe that some Members were sailing close to the wind, I do not believe that unparliamentary language was used.
I have received formal notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement. The statement will be made at a convenient time after 10.30 am tomorrow.
Some Members may have received an incorrect Marshalled List of Amendments. Owing to an administrative error a line was omitted at the end of the second amendment on the Marshalled List. That was corrected, and copies of the revised Marshalled List were issued. Let me point out, in case any Member has received an incorrect copy, that under the heading "Amendment to the Motion to insert a new Standing Order after Standing Order 57" the final line should read
"The Committee shall consist of 17 members."
Members who have a Marshalled List which does not include that sentence should dispose of it and obtain a revised version from the Doorkeepers in the Lobby.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for a suspension of the Assembly for one hour, particularly in the light of your last comment. We have been handed a list of amendments, some of which are complicated and have far-reaching implications, and we have not been given time to consider them. That is not satisfactory. It is also unsatisfactory that this practice is starting to take root in the Assembly. Sinn Féin is very unhappy about the way this has been done. The issues involved in some of these amendments are very serious, so I ask for a suspension to enable us to consider this matter thoroughly.

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, MrSpeaker. The request for a suspension has some merit. Some Members may be confused about which sheet of paper is being dealt with and about which amendment is pertinent. A shorter period — I believe that you can suspend proceedings for less than one hour — would be enough to enable us to clarify the position before starting the debate.

Mr Speaker: I can understand that there may be some element of uncertainty and confusion, and I apologise for that. It seems reasonable that we should suspend proceedings so that Members can consider the matter. May I have the leave of the House to suspend proceedings for 30 minutes?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I have a piece of additional business.

Mr Speaker: Is it relevant to this question?

Mr Danny Kennedy: Not directly.

Mr Speaker: Then it will have to be taken a little later.
May I have the leave of the House to suspend the sitting for 30 minutes to enable Members to consider these amendments? It is not because they came late — Members will know that amendments can be brought — but because there was an administrative error, and therefore an element was introduced about which Members may wish to be clear. When we return, Members may still be unclear, and we shall have to consider the matter again. I am somewhat hesitant to give a longer suspension at this point, because there is a good deal of business to be transacted today.
The Assembly was, by leave, suspended at 2.39 pm and resumed at 3.10 pm.

Mr Speaker: Members will have had an opportunity to look at the Marshalled List of amendments. Since we are all trying to find our way, perhaps I should explain what is meant by "Marshalled List of Amendments". When all the amendments are in, we marshall them for the ease of the House by putting them in the order of the items to which they relate. On this occasion it is fairly simple as there are only two amendments. However, in the case of a Bill with perhaps many amendments it would be more valuable to have a Marshalled List.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reasonably content with the Marshalled List of amendments. The other problem we face relates to the Order Paper itself. On the first Order Paper that I received there was a motion, in the names of Mr Ford and myself, relating to the Committee of the Centre, seeking to bring under scrutiny other matters that were the responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I now have two Order Papers with different font sizes. The amendment sheet says
"At line 3, delete from ‘Committee of the’ to the end of line 8 and insert —".
The effect depends on which Order Paper is used.

Mr Speaker: You are right. These are contentious issues. I recently discovered that the Act on which this Assembly is based has certain imperfections of a similar kind, so we are not alone in this regard. The Order Paper that was issued first reads
"delete from ‘Committee of the’ to end of line 10 and insert —".
With the reduced font size, "line 10" became "line 8". This is a technical problem that we will have to make sure does not arise again. My apologies for the confusion.

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh, on page 2 of the Order Paper, under the words "Proposed amendment to Standing Order 53", we read
"Proposed: After Standing Order 52(4) insert a new Standing Order".
Should that not be "53(4)"?

Mr Speaker: It should.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the First Minister proposes to make a statement beginning with the words "With permission". Does that mean that he will be speaking with the permission of the House? Will any Member be able to withhold permission.

Mr Speaker: It is intended to be with the permission of the Speaker.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Oh, that is different.

North/South Ministerial Council: Inaugural Meeting

Mr Speaker: I call on the First and the Deputy First Ministers to make the statement.

Rev William McCrea: Confusion seems to be the order of the day. Has the First Minister crossed the Floor permanently? Perhaps he feels more at ease with SDLP Members than with his Colleagues on the Unionist Back Benches.

Mr Speaker: In fairness to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the House, I shall explain how we propose to deal with statements. In this case the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister or both will make the statement. Any Minister making a statement may use one of the lecterns that have been provided. Members will then be able to ask questions for up to one hour.
This will not be a debate, so there will no vote or long speeches. Questions — in this case to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — should be short and to the point. Either may reply, and both felt that it would be sensible for them to sit together. While I will call Members to speak, I will not call Ministers to respond. They will have to sort out between them who is to reply.
The Member should not read too much into the fact that today they are sitting on a particular side. That may change from statement to statement.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, you have said there will be no opportunity to vote, yet at the end of the statement you will move that it be noted. Surely if that Question is before the House, Members must have an opportunity to say "Aye" or "No".

Mr Speaker: I have not approved that wording. In any case, as the Member knows, statements are not normally followed, in this or any other place, by a vote. Those words will not necessarily be used at the end.

Rt Hon David Trimble: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to report to the Assembly on yesterday’s inaugural plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.
The following Ministers participated in the meeting: Mr David Trimble, Mr Seamus Mallon, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Mr Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Sean Farren, Mr Sam Foster, Mr Michael McGimpsey, Mr Martin McGuinness and Ms Brid Rodgers.
This report has been approved by all the Ministers who attended that meeting and is made on their behalf by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The Council agreed a Memorandum of Understanding on Procedure, which sets out procedural arrangements relating to the proceedings and operation of the Council. A copy of the memorandum has been placed in the Assembly Library.
The locations of the headquarters and the other offices of the six North/South implementation bodies were agreed. Waterways Ireland will have its headquarters in Enniskillen and three regional offices in the Republic. The Food Safety Promotion Board will be based in Cork, and the Trade and Business Development Board in Newry. The Special European Union Programmes Body will have its headquarters in Belfast and regional offices in Omagh and Monaghan. The Irish Language Agency of the North/South Language Board will have headquarters in Dublin and a regional office in Belfast, while the headquarters of the Ullans Agency will be in Belfast, with a regional office in County Donegal. The Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will be based in Londonderry, with a regional office near Carlingford Lough. The Lights Agency will be based in the Dublin/Dun Laoghaire area. The new Tourism Company, when it is established, will have its headquarters in Dublin and a regional office in Coleraine.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Council also appointed members to the boards of the Food Safety Body, the Trade and Business Development Body, the North/South Language Body and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.
The Council agreed an outline programme of work in relation to the six areas for co-operation identified in the 15 February 1999 report to the Assembly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister as a basis for follow-up in the appropriate sectoral formats. It also agreed that the relevant proposals in the outline programme of work should be tabled at the first meetings of the council in each appropriate sectoral format.
The Council agreed that it would meet in sectoral format to consider issues relating to the six implementation bodies and the six areas of co-operation at the earliest possible date and that the question of additional sectoral formats would be agreed by the Council meeting in institutional format. It agreed that the next meeting in plenary form would take place in Dublin in June next year.
A copy of the communiqué that was issued following the meeting, which gives details of the locations of the boards and the Tourism Company and of the board members, has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. According to the Act it is incumbent on Ministers to report to the House. It was also stated to the people of this Province that the House would be sovereign with regard to these matters. You have now told us that there will be no opportunity for us to put these matters to a vote, that there will simply be a statement.
I am well aware that a statement in the House of Commons attracts questions and answers only. Are you telling us that the reports from these bodies are going to be in the form of a statement? Having been told that all these matters will be finally decided by the Assembly, we are now being told that we cannot vote on what took place at the first meeting. No one in the Assembly other than those associated with Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon knew what was going to happen. We did not see an agenda. Now we are told that we, as representatives of the Ulster people, cannot vote on these issues.

Mr Speaker: Order. First, let me say that an agenda was circulated to Members. As regards voting on the matter, the Member knows and has said that statements do not afford the opportunity for voting. However, there is no reason why there should not be other appropriate opportunities for voting in the House if, for example, there were a question of administrative actions being probed or motions being put down in relation to them.
We now have two Standing Orders which will give Committees the opportunity to scrutinise various aspects of the work. In that context there may well be opportunities for matters to be raised and votes to be taken. As the Member knows, a statement is not meant to be used as an opportunity for a vote, but motions may, of course, be put down by Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: During the referendum campaign — indeed, even after it — the issue of accountability in relation to the decisions that would be taken on a North/South basis was much discussed. It was made quite clear by those from the Unionist tradition who supported the Belfast Agreement that there would be accountability. The distinction in this matter is vital. If, in order to make Ministers accountable for decisions that will be taken on a North/South body, there is a requirement for people to put down a motion objecting to what they have done, the onus is on those who object to get the necessary percentages of both sections of the community in order to ensure that those Ministers are stopped. If, on the other hand, the Executive is required to get the support of the Assembly for what it has done, the support must come from both sections of the community. That is the key distinction.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Speaker, would it not be in order for you to remind Members that the creation of these implementation bodies was debated and voted on in January and, I think, March?

Mr Speaker: It is not for me to judge whether House procedures are satisfactory or unsatisfactory (politically they may be either); I can only rule on whether they accord with Standing Orders or ‘Erskine May’. The First Minister has made the point that there has been a vote on the matters. I can rule on points of order but not on political accountability or propriety or anything like that.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Speaker, I am sure you are aware that we took a decision — against the better interests of the Unionist community, I think — in relation to the establishment of such bodies. We are now dealing with the modus operandi of those bodies. That is a very different issue. I want it to be clearly on the record that on the basis of Mr Trimble’s argument, what we have here are North/South bodies that will not be accountable to the Assembly unless Members put down motions which require the support of the Nationalist community.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We are not dealing with the content; we are dealing with the fact that this is the first statement from the First Minister about decisions taken at a meeting. We, as well as the general public, were continually told — and this was sold from the Unionist platforms both at the election and the referendum — that this House would be sovereign. The First Minister said on the television last night that we need not worry about the minority position in this Council, and that everything would come before the Assembly eventually. The First Minister cannot take it upon himself to say "I am going to make a statement". If he does, according to your ruling, Mr Speaker, we are never going to be able to have a vote on his statement. The words "I beg to move that the statement be noted" should be put to the House, and every Member should have the right to say "Aye" or "No". We are now being muzzled; we cannot even ask the First Minister questions. A Member can ask one question, the First Minister will reply, and then he moves on to another.
Those of us who are parliamentarians in other places know the uselessness of questioning a statement. This is a Government’s way of dealing with policy quickly, without having a real debate. May I put down a motion on this issue today, to be debated tomorrow?

Mr Speaker: The Member knows that he can, with the leave of the House, put down a motion today for debate tomorrow. If he did not receive the leave of the House, the first opportunity for such a motion would be at a subsequent sitting. I note what he says about the use of questions, and so on, in other places, but we must be cautious about being unduly critical of other places and other Parliaments. That is not proper. The situation in respect of a statement is clear, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have volunteered the statement. There may be other ways of dealing with such a matter. A Member could put a motion down or new Standing Orders could be approved.

Mr Robert McCartney: The real issue is the principle to which Mr Robinson and Dr Paisley have referred — the accountability of the Executive to the Assembly. I suggest that that principle was canvassed very strongly by Mr Trimble. Are he and his colleagues entitled to take Executive decisions and tell the House about them in the form of a statement without permitting any debate? In other words, can they make the Assembly subject to decisions already taken in the Executive?
The point that you are making, Mr Speaker, is that we can ex post facto have a debate on something that has already been decided upon at the North/South Ministerial Council. Such procedure would make a nonsense of the principle that the Executive is accountable to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I can deal only with the procedural point. Matters of principle will have to be discussed in another way. They may be related; I do not dispute that. My role is to address points of procedure. When you say that the Executive is not accountable, that is a matter of dispute in other places. This is not unique to ourselves, and it will continue to be a matter of dispute and discussion. The question is whether I can rule that any of the proceedings are out of order. I cannot do that, for they are clearly in order.
We should proceed so that Members have an opportunity to ask questions and get replies from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. To that end I call Mr Esmond Birnie. [Interruption]

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that issues such as agreement on the Memorandum of Understanding on Procedure, the location of the headquarters and other offices of the six North/South implementation bodies, the appointment of a host of members to boards and the outline programme of work will not be subject to any vote — in other words, that Members will be unable to vote either "Yea" or "Nay" on those proposals?

Mr Speaker: Order. Although the issue of order has been clearly spelt out, Members are tending to make interventions in the form of points of order. The issue that the Member raises would be proper in the context of questions.
So far as the point of order is concerned, I have repeatedly given the ruling that a statement is not an opportunity for a vote. There can therefore be no vote on a statement today or any other day. That is the situation in other places, as the Member’s Colleagues well know.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Can the First and the Deputy First Ministers confirm that Ministers Robinson and Dodds were asked to attend the inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council? Can they further confirm that, in spite of the lurid remarks by the DUP about Unionists being permanently outnumbered on the North/South Ministerial Council, all decisions on that body will be by agreement?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am very glad to be able to answer a question after that litany of bogus points of order, which contained questions to which the Members making them did not want answers. The statement made by the Deputy First Minister and myself was made in fulfilment of a statutory requirement. It was not a matter on which we had a choice.
As to the point raised by Dr Birnie, I can confirm that Mr Robinson (the Minister for Regional Development) and Mr Dodds (the Minister for Social Development) were asked if they would attend the inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, but they both declined. Consequently, on that occasion, they were not nominated to represent the Executive, thus avoiding their being in breach of their pledge of office. It is an undoubted fact that they would have served themselves and their interests much better if they had participated.
With regard to decision making in the council, as the Assembly will know, under Section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act the First and the Deputy First Ministers, acting jointly, must, as required by the Belfast Agreement, nominate Ministers to achieve cross-community participation in the North/South Ministerial Council. That agreement requires that arrangements be made so that the Assembly as a whole is represented at summit level and in dealings with other institutions in order to ensure cross-community involvement. Decisions made in the Council are by agreement and within the defined authority of those attending. This ensures that there is, at each stage, consensus and that any decision taken at the North/South Ministerial Council is within the terms of the authority granted by the Executive of this Assembly. Each side of the council remains accountable to its legislature, whose approval will be required in the event of any decisions going beyond the defined authority of those attending.

Mr John Dallat: Will the First Minister enlarge on the role of the Tourism Company that is to be established in Coleraine and say what impact, if any, it will have on the international tourist market, particularly in America and Europe?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The North/South Ministerial Council is to meet in sectoral format at the earliest possible date to consider the establishment of the Tourism Company. The company will be a publicly owned limited company and will be established by Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The new company will subsume the existing overseas tourist marketing initiative. It will carry out overseas marketing, promote activities in which both Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board are involved, and establish offices overseas for that purpose.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the first Minister tell us the content of the memorandum he received from the two DUP members of the Executive. Let him tell the Assembly what they said in their reply to the invitation to attend this meeting. It is scandalous that we have a first Minister who uses television to try to mislead people. He made it seem as though my Colleagues had sent him a lengthy presentation that was to be submitted to the North/South Ministerial Council.
The First Minister tells us that we had prior knowledge of this, but we received nothing except names. Perhaps he will now tell us how much this Food Safety Promotion Board based in Cork will cost each year. Perhaps he will also tell us how much the Trade and Business Development Body based in Newry will cost each year and how many people each will employ.
Perhaps he will tell us what complement of civil servants from both sides of the border this Special EU Programmes Body will have. How many will be based in headquarters, and how many in the regional offices in Omagh and Monaghan?
Perhaps he will also tell us about the Irish Language Agency of the North/South Language Body, which will have headquarters in Dublin and a regional office in Belfast. What is the difference between the headquarters of one of these —

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that we must, if not share power, at least share questions. The Member has asked a substantial number of questions, and I must ask Members to try to restrict their questions to one or to a limited number at least.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I have been in the House of Commons for a long time. Many questions are asked there.
This Assembly is gagged. I am being gagged. I am not being allowed to say on behalf of my constituents that I do not like something and intend to vote against it, because you, Mr Speaker, have ruled that this is a statement and that there will be no vote.
You have also ruled that the onus will not be on the Executive to get its business through the House but, rather, that it will be for individuals to resist and prevent it from going through. I believe that I am entitled to say that we should be permitted to know the difference between the headquarters and the regional offices of every body mentioned in this paper by the First Minister. We should be entitled to know the number of staff in each office and what the cost distribution is going to be. What will each of these offices cost? What about this new Tourist —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is little point in my trying to maintain order in the House when Members, even though they are aware of the rules, bend them, stretch them and press them to the side.
The Member has asked a number of questions. In my experience, the more questions he asks, the greater the likelihood that the First Minister will respond by saying that he will write to the Member. The Member knows this well, having sat through many Question Times.
I appeal to the Member and to other Members to restrict their questions to a reasonable number.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As the Assembly knows, the details of the activities of these bodies were set out in the report which the Deputy First Minister and I presented to the House on 18 December last year, and the report was approved by the House in two votes made in the first few months of this year.
What we are seeing now is introducing nothing new in terms of substance; it merely sets out some of the administrative arrangements necessary to implement the decisions taken by the Assembly on those occasions.
With regard to costs, I regret to say that I am not currently in a position to give the detailed answers that the Member has sought. I will not on this occasion offer to write to him but will refer him to the statement to be made tomorrow, with your permission, Mr Speaker, by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I expect that his statement will contain figures which will show the planned expenditure for each body over the course of the next financial year. The Member can then make his own assessment as to the significance of that expenditure in relation to the objectives to be achieved.
As to the distribution of work between headquarters and sub- and regional offices, all I can say at present is that headquarters will be headquarters, and a sub-office will be a sub-office. The extent to which the work is divided between one and the other will obviously vary from body to body, and no decisions have yet been taken. These are comparatively minor administrative matters which, I am sure, Members will wish to pursue through the relevant Committees.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Last week the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister commented publicly on this matter. However, I want to raise it in the context of yesterday’s meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Last week Mr Adams drew attention to the fact that his car had been bugged by British Intelligence, or members of a similar network, at a very sensitive period in the negotiations. That was a scandalous breach of faith, given that the negotiations with the IRA were at a very critical point. I would like to ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: You are very good at calling down others.

Mr Speaker: I have been remarkably patient, as Hansard will demonstrate.

Mr Alex Maskey: Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister commented on this matter last week. Was the fact that a car used by elected representatives was bugged, particularly at a time when both those Members were involved in delicate negotiations, raised at the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The matter was not raised by any of the Ministers present. The agenda for yesterday’s meeting was itemised and was adhered to. I note the import of Mr Maskey’s question. However, I repeat that the matter was not on the agenda. No Minister asked for it to be put on the agenda, nor was its absence raised by any Minister.

Mr Sean Neeson: Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that if the Assembly is to fulfil its proper role it must operate on the basis of accountability? Do they also agree that accountability also relates to issues which were agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council? If so, then details of the outline programme of work with regard to the six areas for co-operation which were earlier identified should be before the House. If those details are not forthcoming now, when can we expect to have them?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I refer the Member to the outlines of those additional areas of co-operation which were originally annexed to the statement that was made by myself and the Deputy First Minister on 18 December 1998. The Assembly, on that date, approved brief descriptions of the subject matter for co-operation through existing channels. Under the heading "Agriculture" it said
"Discussion of CAP issues; Animal and Plant Health Policy and Research; Rural Development."
Brief outlines were given of the areas for co-operation through existing channels at that stage. The report of 18 December 1998 has been reprinted several times.
In addition, officials have considered possible ways in which that co-operation can be carried out in practice. Those proposals will be tabled through sectoral meetings of the NSMC in the coming months. As there are six areas where there are implementation bodies and six areas where further co-operation is to be considered, it will take some time to work through those. The details of the working through of these matters will be fully available for discussion between the Ministers responsible and their Committees over the coming months.
This was done so that the Committee could, as it should, share with the Minister the development of these matters. At the moment, no decision has been taken with regard to these six areas for further co-operation beyond what was decided by this House on 18 December. We now have to start to work out in detail the practical implications of what we decided then.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Is the First Minister aware that by entering into the arrangements that he agreed to yesterday with the representatives of the Irish Government — the arrangements laid out by himself and the Deputy First Minister in their joint statement today — he was not acting in accordance with pledges that he had made to the electorate who put him in this Assembly? Indeed, he was not even acting for all the members of his party.
Does he agree, therefore, that in Armagh yesterday he was simply representing a minority of Unionists, that he had no mandate to enter into any such agreement with the representatives of the Government of the Irish Republic? Can the First Minister explain why in 1974 he and his Colleague Sir Reg Empey opposed the Council of Ireland under the power-sharing Executive? I remember Mr Empey stopping traffic at the top of Bradshaw’s Brae. Regardless of how one felt about that arrangement — and I was totally opposed to it — at least it was not polluted by the presence of Sinn Féin/IRA.
Perhaps Mr Trimble can tell us when his Damascus Road conversion took place and how he can justify sitting down at a table with those who are still fully involved in illegal activities and still inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. The reality is, as Mr Trimble, if he were honest, would accept, that he is here claiming to represent the people on the basis of their 71% endorsement of the Belfast Agreement, even though that consent was manufactured.

Mr Speaker: Order. Questions are clear. Elaboration changes them into something else.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member who spoke is suffering from a misunderstanding of the nature of what was done. There was no agreement then that was in any sense analogous to the Belfast Agreement. Yesterday there was simply a working out of the detailed implementation of agreements already entered into — namely, agreements made by the Assembly when it approved the report brought forward by the Deputy First Minister and me. This report was published on 18 December last and was subject to votes in this Chamber on at least two occasions. That was the agreement that we were implementing, and, of course, that flowed directly from the Belfast Agreement — the existence of the North/South Ministerial Council and these particular areas for co-operation were, in many cases, foreshadowed in the Belfast Agreement itself.
The Member who spoke answered his own question when he pointed out that the Belfast Agreement had been endorsed by a clear and overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a referendum. It was subsequently endorsed again in the Assembly elections. It is quite clear that there is democratic validity for what is being done. On another occasion I will be very happy to take the Member through the differences between what was done in 1998 and what was proposed in 1974 in order to point out the manifold nature of those differences to him, but it would not be appropriate to take the time of the House today.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: May I ask the First Minister what is the time commitment for persons occupying positions in the bodies and whether they receive remuneration of any description? Are they committed to one day a week, one week a month, or one month a year? Are all the boards subject to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act?

Rt Hon David Trimble: On the question of remuneration I can tell the Assembly that members of the boards will receive £4,000 or IR£5,000 per annum, Vice Chairpersons £5,200 or IR£6,500, and Chairpersons £6,400 or IR£8,000. With regard to the amount of time involved I cannot give a detailed response now, but it is fairly clear that there are significant responsibilities.
The remuneration is entirely in line with that for equivalent posts in other public bodies. The figures were agreed by the Finance Ministries in Dublin and Belfast, and we are satisfied that the whole matter is entirely in accordance with existing practice.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that the consultation which preceded the issue of the memorandum was inadequate and that they did not meet the remit that they set out for themselves in the report of 15 February 1999 — to have further consultations with parties on the draft before it was finalised in the North/South Ministerial Council? In particular, do they agree that parties are right to be critical on hearing for the first time the nominations to these bodies and, indeed, the remuneration? Nowadays public bodies go to press when looking for nominees, particularly in cases where the persons appointed will receive financial remuneration.
If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the consultation with the parties, particularly those which were involved in the multi-party negotiations that helped to establish the implementation bodies, was inadequate, what steps will they take to improve consultation in the future, particularly in relation to the independent consultative forum that is referred to in paragraph 19 (strand two) and the joint parliamentary forum referred to in paragraph 18 (strand two)?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Members should bear in mind that in the last two weeks we have done a considerable number of things in quite a short time. Not everything has been achieved, and it is perfectly clear that some elements of the agreement have still to be put in place. These include the establishment of the Civic Forum and parliamentary groups and the consultative forums with regard to North/South co-operation, to which the Member referred. We will consider these matters and take them forward as soon as we can.
There was a clear desire on the part of a number of parties — ourselves included — to see these major building blocks put in place as soon as possible, particularly as so many months had elapsed. Agreement was reached in December 1998 and was implemented by legislation in March 1999. The delay in establishing these institutions was causing considerable uncertainty and inconvenience in the public services North and South, and it was natural that once the Assembly went live our next priority would be to have the inaugural meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council and to start to implement those things agreed in December 1998 and January and March 1999.
I am sorry if the Member feels that the consultation was inadequate. There will be plenty of opportunities in the Assembly for consultation about the working out of these programmes — in particular, through the appropriate Committees, whose purpose is to enable Members to obtain information, to make their views known and to be involved in the development of policy.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Prof McWilliams referred to the Civic Forum. It is a requirement that arrangements for its establishment be made within six months of devolution. Steps are being taken to ensure that that will happen. Maximum consultation will take place, in the same way as before, so that it will be a genuine consultative forum, as intended. The same applies to the proposed interparliamentary forum. I welcome debate on that, and I welcome very widespread consultation. This is one of the most important matters that the Assembly can consider. It derives directly from the Good Friday Agreement, as does the Civic Forum. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that electronic devices such as telephones and pagers should be switched off, left outside or set in such a way that they upset only the Member and not the rest of us.

Rev William McCrea: What about bugs?

Mr Speaker: The same applies to bugs. This rule applies not only to those of us in the Chamber but also to people in the Gallery.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that I heard the Deputy First Minister correctly. I understood him to talk about decisions with regard to an interparliamentary body. What does he mean by that?

Mr Speaker: If Members have further questions, that is well and good, but I am not clear that that is a point of order.

Mr Robert McCartney: I direct this question specifically to the First Minister. Is he not being at best disingenuous and at worst misleading when he refers to this House as having endorsed, on 18 December 1998 and in February 1999, the arrangements whose outworkings were dealt with at the meeting yesterday? At that time were the First Minister and his party not telling both this House and the pro-Unionist community that there would be no further outworkings of the agreement and that they would not be participating in any Executive unless guns were handed in?
Did he not, both at that time and subsequently in the European election, support the literature of the Ulster Unionist candidate, Mr Jim Nicholson, which specifically said that if guns were not handed in, there would be no participation in government? Is it not therefore quite wrong of the First Minister to chasten Members of the Assembly with the suggestion that what happened yesterday was authorised on the basis of what happened on 18 December 1998 and in February 1999, at which time he was advocating an entirely different set of circumstances to those which presently obtain?
The second leg of my question relates to the appointment of the various members of these boards, whose remuneration, but not the extent of whose duties, we have been hearing about today. I note that Mr Barry Fitzsimons of the Ulster Unionist Party, who helpfully seconded the First Minister’s motion at the executive council, is one of the appointees. Mr Jack Allen, a former chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party and currently the party treasurer, is another. Mr Bertie Kerr, a well-known Fermanagh Ulster Unionist apparatchik and, I believe, father of the First Minister’s publicrelations man, is an appointee, as is Lord Laird, who was elevated to the House of Lords on Mr Trimble’s recommendation. All these gentlemen are paid appointees to these bodies.
Was Mr Bertie Kerr, for example, appointed on the basis of his well-known expertise in the food and health industry, or was it simply a question of jobs for the boys? I suppose that Lord Castlereagh got it wrong in 1800 when he said that with the Act of Union he had purchased the fee simple of Irish political corruption. Or is this something that is purchased, First Minister, in each generation?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am very surprised to hear aspersions being cast on the founder of the Union, but that is another matter.
On the question of whether the House has been misled by comments which I have made today, I am quite at a loss to understand it. It is clear that the arrangements for the cross-border implementation bodies and the areas for further co-operation which were agreed by the Assembly on 18 December and subsequently are exactly those that were put in place on the coming into operation of the Act. The Executive made some fairly routine administrative decisions regarding their operation and then saw them brought into effect through the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.
As to the Member’s effusions about the identities and personalities of those appointed, we are satisfied that all these people are fit and proper to carry out the tasks that they will have to undertake.

Mr David McClarty: Like Assemblyman John Dallat, I am encouraged to hear from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that the Northern Ireland office of the new tourism company is to be located in Coleraine. That decision is a reflection of the expertise and experience on the north coast. Over the years, my constituency (East Londonderry) and part of North Antrim, have marketed themselves as the Causeway Coast. In that area is to be found the jewel in the crown of tourism north and south of the border — the Giant’s Causeway.

Several Members: Speech.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not question the veracity of what the Member says, but he should address himself to the question as quickly as possible.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do question the veracity of what he said. With all the noise around me, I cannot hear a damn thing.

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Mr McClarty for his question.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the Member for East Belfast the difference between veracity and content? I think it was the content rather than the veracity that he was questioning.

Mr Speaker: I am tempted to explain the nature of a point of order to all hon Members, but I will content myself with calling Mr McClarty.

Mr David McClarty: I am sorry for not getting to the question quickly enough — I have been in the company of the DUP for far too long. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister indicate when they expect the new company to be formed, and how many jobs will initially be located in Coleraine?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The reasons for locating the Northern Ireland office of Tourism Ireland in Coleraine are obvious, as the Member has pointed out. It appeared to be an entirely appropriate place, and it was equally appropriate to have a sub-office in Northern Ireland. We expect that the new company will be formed following a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the appropriate sectoral format. This is likely to take place early in the new year. The development of the company, its budgets and staffing will be matters for early consideration. The eventual staffing of the body will depend on the structural arrangements agreed by the council with the respective tourist boards.
We cannot, therefore, know exactly how many jobs will be located initially in Coleraine. We expect that the office will be large, given the need for a major initiative on tourism in Northern Ireland.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: How will the North/South implementation bodies be financed?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The implementation bodies will receive grants from money voted by the Northern Ireland Assembly and by Dáil Éireann. The North/South Ministerial Council, with the approval of the Finance Ministers both North and South, will recommend the amount of each grant. The relevant Ministers, both North and South, will consider the financing of each implementation body when the North/South Ministerial Council meets in sectoral format. For the North/South Ministerial Council to decide such matters in yesterday’s plenary format would not have been efficient. It is more efficient to deal with that matter in sectoral format when all the lead Ministers in each sector will be present.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the First Minister comment on the statement he made before yesterday’s meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council? He claimed that
"The vast majority of Unionists have always supported a mechanism that would facilitate co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic but which did not seek to undermine our constitutional sovereignty."
Shortly before the First Minister made that comment Mr Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin, speaking to the same group of reporters, claimed
"I think that today’s development is an exciting, even a joyous occasion. It will see as its culmination the eventual unity of Ireland."
I understand that, in the past, both Mr Trimble and Mr McGuinness have had some difficulty with the truth. Perhaps the First Minister will tell us who is lying in this particular case.

Mr Speaker: I should caution the Member. By asking that specific question, he is out of order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Perhaps the First Minister will tell us which of the two is telling the truth?
In the light of the extensive work programme referred to in the document and of the comments made by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic before the meeting when he said
"We are not going to do all this and then go back"
will the First Minister confirm that this work programme will continue if there is no decommissioning of terrorist weapons? Will there be a going back or not?
Finally, it seems that party position has been the basis on which some of the appointments have been made. We have had no indication of the cost of the implementation bodies to be set up; and we have had no indication of the amount of work involved, and so on. Will the First Minister say whether a series of questions on a statement on which there is no debate or vote — to use his words to his party on 9 January — "before the vital vote on the setting up of these bodies" represents complete accountability of the bodies to the Assembly?

Rt Hon David Trimble: This does provide accountability to the Assembly. The North/South Ministerial Council will be more accountable to the Assembly than other bodies and organisations. If a Department decided to establish an office at a particular location, that would not be discussed at length on the Floor of the House.
I have no doubt that there will be a higher level of accountability on this issue coming not just through this statement but through other channels as well.
On the question of costs, I refer the Member to my earlier comments. When the Minister of Finance and Personnel makes his budget statement tomorrow, he will give an indication of the cost of each of the implementation bodies. I do not have the figures to hand, and even if I had, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to give them in advance of the Budget statement.
As to whether this institution will go forward or back, of course we hope that it goes forward, although we are also aware of the factors that could disrupt progress. As to the Member’s opening question when he referred to my statements, I have no doubt as to the accuracy of what I said about Northern Ireland’s position as it is today in law and the lack of any constitutional implications of these bodies. The other statement that he referred to was of an aspirational character referring to possible events in the future. I have at present no knowledge as to whether this statement is inaccurate, but I believe it will prove not to be so.

Mr Mick Murphy: A Chathaoirligh, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the North/South ministerial cross-border institutions threaten no one and benefit everyone in the areas covered — loughs, waterways, roadways, agricultural trade and business developments? Do they also agree that the locations of the six border implementation bodies will enhance areas that have been deprived of positive development for so long? Having said that, I would like to welcome the Trade and Business Development Board to my home town of Newry. Do they also agree that following from that co-operation the North/South Ministerial Council will establish a co-ordinated and integrated approach to the development of the cross-border road links?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I fully agree that what was decided yesterday, what we are reporting on today — which will be part of the ongoing political process — threatens no one. It is something that can and will be of benefit to the people of Ireland, North and South. It will be of benefit to people in every part of the island. In Northern Ireland especially, it gives an opportunity to diversify, to expand and to have the type of relationship with the South of Ireland which makes sense in the type of world we live in nowadays. The world has shrunk in such a way that Ireland is now, whichever part of it we speak about, a very small place, and it is only by partnership that threatens no one and that will threaten no one that we can maximise our influence in socioeconomic terms.
I fully agree with the Member regarding the locations. I believe that the institutions will be beneficial to the areas in which they are placed. They will have a substantial spin-off in terms of not just employment but also of status and in the type of involvement which we hope to encourage in terms of decentralisation as it applies in the application of these locations and surely will continue to apply in the various sectors of Government as we move along.
With regard to the Member’s last question, would that the Minister who is in charge of roads were sitting on the North/South Ministerial Council. I assure the Member that this matter will not go by default because of his absence. It is a matter that is particularly dear to my heart — and other parts of my anatomy considering the state of the roads at present.

Mr Ken Robinson: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that the finance for the implementation bodies will be voted by the Assembly on an annual basis and that the House will therefore be able to check on their activities and how efficient they are? In these days of equality, East Antrim has been missed from the list of North/South bodies. For that I am thankful, but the best of it is that there are to be East/West bodies, and the towns of Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey are available to host them.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It may interest Members to know that the Ullans agency that will deal with Ulster-Scots, while located in Belfast, does intend to have an outreach programme, which I am sure will not ignore East Antrim.
The answer to the most important first question about authority and accountability is simply "Yes". Finance for the implementation bodies will come through the Assembly and, of course, through the Dáil in Dublin. There is accountability to both institutions.

Mr Alban Maginness: May I congratulate both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the successful and historic first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council which will, we hope, open a new chapter in relations between North and South.
May I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what is the status of the Memorandum of Understanding and Procedure which was referred to by Dr Paisley? May I also welcome the nominations to the boards of the North/South bodies and ask what criteria were used for choosing the members?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Memorandum of Understanding and Procedure is the product of very lengthy negotiations between officials North and South. Its function is to set out the arrangements for the proceedings and operation of the North/South Ministerial Council. Of course, the memorandum is not legally binding. Rather, as its name suggests, it represents simply an informal understanding between the two Administrations, North and South, on how the North/South Ministerial Council should operate. Either side can at any time propose changes to it, although any such changes will be adopted only by mutual agreement between the two sides, North and South.
It is important to note that nothing in the Memorandum of Understanding and Procedure overrides the Good Friday Agreement. Officials went to considerable efforts to root the memorandum very carefully in the provisions of that agreement. That is why, before every paragraph of the memorandum, is corresponding provisions of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement are reproduced in full. It was felt that it was appropriate to clarify that the Memorandum of Understanding and Procedure flowed directly from the agreement and was fully compatible with its provisions.
In relation to the boards, I thank the Assemblyman for his kind words. Fifty per cent of the board members were nominated by the Northern side of the North/South Ministerial Council and 50% by the Southern side.
It was important to have each board reflecting — [Interruption]

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is obvious that the Deputy First Minister is reading a prepared answer. Could it be that Ulster Unionist and SDLP Back-Benchers were handed "probing" questions this morning?

Mr Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for Ministers to use prepared briefs. I am sure that when the Member’s Colleagues respond they will also be using well-prepared briefs.

Mr Seamus Mallon: Mr Speaker, I sincerely hope that neither the Assemblyman nor any Member of the Assembly will expect Ministers to come here without adequate preparation.
It is important to cover the comprehensive span of the boards and, in some cases, the specific locations such as the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. It is also important to draw on experience from the private as well as the public sector, for example, in the Trade and Business Development Body.
It was important to secure the diversity of cultural backgrounds, for example, in the Languages Board. I should like to make clear that the procedures for public appointments as set down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments do not apply to appointments to implementation boards. It was not, in any case, practicable to use these procedures as it was necessary to appoint board members quickly so that the implementation bodies could start working.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Speaker, I have not given advance notice of this question to either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. I am surprised that the First Minister has put his name to a communiqué and a statement which clearly made a fundamental mistake in the naming of the city which lies at the mouth of the Foyle. I would like to remind Members that the Loughs Agency will be based in Londonderry, and I hope that the First Minister will not in future sign any documents which get that wrong. It is Londonderry and will remain Londonderry.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened clearly and heard "Londonderry".

Mr Jim Wells: The communiqué issued yesterday did not say Londonderry, and the statement in my hand does not say Londonderry. It is Londonderry and will remain Londonderry. I hope the First Minister remembers that, and if it sticks in the throats — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an opportunity for the Member to ask a question.

Mr Jim Wells: Is the First Minister aware of the implications of the Loughs Agency for the Carlingford Lough area? Is he aware that it will have control not only of the lough but also of all the rivers flowing into it? This will mean that a huge area, including places as far away as Rathfriland, will be covered by bailiffs from the Irish Republic who will be based in an office in either Omeath or Greenore. Is he aware that bailiffs of the existing Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland will be made redundant so that these new staff can be given their powers? Is he aware that fishermen from both sides of that community are incensed because they will have to buy licences from the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Loughs Agency? One licence may have to be paid in sterling and the other in punts. This body is handing control of major fisheries such as the Clanrye, the Kilkeel River and the Whitewater into the hands of people who do not live in Northern Ireland and have no experience of controlling its fisheries. As a result of this decision, perfectly good staff will be made redundant.

Rt Hon David Trimble: There are a number of assumptions in the second part of the question, and they are, at present, only that. The arrangements that will take place with regard to regulation will be analogous to those that have been in place in the Foyle River basin for 45 years. In respect of certain operations, bailiffs have worked on the Northern Ireland side and the Republic of Ireland side throughout those 45 years. The assumption that the new agency in Carlingford will immediately dispense with the services of all currently operating in that area, who know it well, and recruit new people is a bold one. I caution the Member to wait and see what will happen in practice.
With regard to the first question, as someone with quite a few ancestors in the city cemetery in Londonderry, I am well aware of the distinction which exists between Derry City Council and the City of Londonderry.

Mr Barry McElduff: A Chathaoirligh. Ba mhaith liom ar dtús fearadh na fáilte a chur roimh an fhoras uile-Éireann don Ghaeilge, a bheidh suite i mBaile Átha Cliath agus i mBéal Feirste. Tá ceist na Gaeilge fíor-thábhachtach agus aithníonn an comhaontú an fhírinne seo. Cé gur maith an rud é go bhfuil an foras seo á chur ar bun, níl ann ach tús. An gcuireann an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad-Aire fáilte roimhe seo agus an bhfuil siad sásta eolas a thabhairt dúinn ar bhallraíocht—

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify if this is a statement or a question please?

Mr Speaker: I can. It is a number of questions.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Derek as sin— ar ghnóthaí airgid agus ar phearsanra an fhorais?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Can you translate that for the rest of your party?

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the Members who are being derogatory about a particular language take the same attitude if Ulster-Scots were being spoken in the Chamber? It may happen at some point, given that there are now provisions for an implementation body to promote that language.

A Member: Maybe some of them will learn it.

Mr Speaker: It is important that we afford each other the courtesy of being heard and, if it is possible, the courtesies of understanding and being understood.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it not be courteous to the rest of the House for Members to ask questions in a language that the vast majority of other Members understand?

Mr Speaker: I have repeatedly requested that what is said be repeated in the language that people generally understand. If that does not happen, only the Clerks and I have a translation available, and that is to ensure a point of order. I am not sure whether, if it is not clarified in English, the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister will feel free to reply, although the Deputy First Minister may be in a better position to do so than the First Minister.

Mr David Ervine: Further to that point of order, MrSpeaker. I remember quite a debate on this on the Standing Orders Committee, and it was decided that no extra time would be allowed for translation. While there is no specific time for questions, you have made it clear that they should be kept to a minimum. That being the case, is it fair to now allow a translation into English?

Mr Speaker: The time limit that existed in the past was in the Initial Standing Orders. The time limit that applies now is one hour for questions and answers, though when points of order are raised that time is not — under my instruction — taken out of the one-hour period.

Mr Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Like Assemblyman McElduff I welcome the creation of the language bodies. I welcome the fact that both languages, Ullans and Irish, will now be matters for consideration, North and South, at that level. I would like to believe that all of us in the House regard our language, traditions and heritage as a part of our cultural being and not as a political flagship or a political issue with which to promote what we regard as our culture, or to denigrate anyone else’s. It is that respect, and, indeed, self-respect, which should inspire anybody involved in these two bodies to try to create a cultural unity that will accommodate the type of cultural diversity which is so needed in our society.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An dtig liom leanúint ar aghaidh leis an cheist?
May I continue with my question?

Mr Speaker: No, I am afraid you may not. I thought that I was calling the Deputy First Minister on a point of order. It is clear that he was responding to the question and giving a translation to the rest of the Members who did not understand it. It is for that reason that I had the clock started again. Clearly it was not a point of order, and Members are reasonably aware of what the question and the answer were.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I did not get my entire question.

Mr Speaker: That is clear, but a number of Members were not able to put all their questions, and not all Members were entirely pleased when I raised a point of order on the continuation of the questions.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The First Minister said to my Colleague Mr Barry McElduff "Too bad." That does not show good leadership, and it certainly does not demonstrate that the First Minister is living up to his position. He should show a little more maturity, though I realise that he sometimes finds that difficult.

Mr Speaker: Order. Asking questions about how Ministers are or are not responding, though one may have one’s own thoughts or feelings about them, is not in order.

Mr Alan McFarland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the principle that someone speaking in a language other than English should translate into English for the rest of us still apply in spite of what has just happened?

Mr Speaker: That practice was established as a courtesy at my request. I cannot do more, for there is no such requirement. [Interruption]

A Member: Point of information, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid there is no such thing as a point of information, and it is not proper to intervene while I am responding to a point of order.
As far as this is concerned, there is a dilemma. If someone takes the opportunity to speak in a language which other Members do not understand and then translates, this comes out of the time for questions, and that is not entirely fair to other Members. This is the case no matter what the language, and it may raise the question of whether the House wishes to go down the road of translation.
This matter is not dealt with in Standing Orders. It is not something which I can facilitate, but in trying to be fair to all Members, I must point out that if we request or insist upon a translation, that will eat up the time for questions, and that will not be entirely fair either. It was dealt with differently under the Initial Standing Orders, in that there was a time limit of 10 minutes, and no matter what was being said, it came to an end then. That is not the situation now.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Further to the point of order, MrSpeaker. Can you confirm that if a Member from Sinn Féin/IRA, or any other party, wishes to waste his time and energy speaking in a language that the vast majority of the rest of us do not understand, that is a waste of his time? Please do not waste our time by forcing us to listen twice to the same gobbledegook.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that speaking in terms of this kind about things that are important to other people is helpful, respectful or characteristic of the courtesy which Members in general have tried to show in the House.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to the point of order, MrSpeaker. I understand perfectly what you are saying with regard to Members affording other Members the courtesy of being heard, and I am sure we all agree. Do you agree that a recent disruption at a police community liaison meeting in Omagh by Mr McElduff and supporters of Sinn Féin —

Mr Speaker: Order. That is very clearly not a point of order and not relevant to the Chamber.

Mr David Ervine: Taking into account the fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not consult as widely as they would have wished in respect of the appointments or nominations, will the First Minister tell the Assembly how many of the usual suspects appointed as members of the implementation advisory boards have stood for election in Northern Ireland, and which parties they represented? Does the First or Deputy First Minister share with me a desire that all Assembly Members should have their cars fitted with karaoke machines?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am afraid that I did not catch the last question, so I am not in a position to respond. As to the substance of the first, I regret to say that I am not in a position to state how many of those appointed have stood for election either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland, as the information is not available to me. I think maybe two. I see four digits are being held up by a Member. Whether it is possible to research that, I do not know. I cannot give that information.
As to the question of consultation, as we said earlier, there was an urgency to get things moving after the long delays, and I am sure Mr Ervine understands that. He will, I am sure, also understand that when we come to the more normal operation of these arrangements many opportunities will arise through Committees, through the Assembly and through specific consultations and debates to ensure that these institutions and co-operation schemes evolve with the widest possible consultation and involvement of the Assembly. It is our intention to be as transparent as we can in all of this. That is why we were happy to make this statement and, indeed, to respond to the questions. I am sure the hon Member will share with me the feeling that some of the questions could have been more focused so that not so much time was wasted.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up, and we must move to the next item of business. [Interruption]

Several Members: No.

Mr Speaker: It is not a question of whether Members wish to; it is a matter of abiding by the Standing Orders.
I will give a minute for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to relocate. In fact, the First Minister already has.

Junior Ministerial Offices

Motion made:
That this Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the number of junior ministerial offices, the procedure for appointment and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office. — [The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister]

Rt Hon David Trimble: I should like to introduce the determination on the Order Paper under Executive Committee Business. The draft determination before the Assembly concerns junior Ministers. Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act provides that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may, at any time, determine that a number of Members should be appointed as junior Ministers and what functions should be exercisable by them. We have made a joint determination which would allow for the appointment of two junior Ministers by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. To be effective, such determination must be approved by the Assembly and, if approved, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have seven days to make the appointments. This does not preclude further appointments in the future, but the current ones would be to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, consequently, the persons appointed must command their confidence.
The functions of these junior Ministers are set out in the determination. They cover the discrete policy areas of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister but not the responsibility for the institutional elements relating to the Executive Committee, the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council or the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which matters fall to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as of right.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is one of the new Northern Ireland Departments. The report we made to the Assembly on 15 February 1999 outlined the responsibilities of the Office. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has responsibility for the Economic Policy Unit, equality and community relations. It will liaise with the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the British-Irish Governmental Conference, the Civic Forum, the International Fund for Ireland and with the Secretary of State on excepted and reserved matters.
The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will also deal with European affairs and international matters, and it will include the Policy Innovation Unit and the Executive Information Service. In addition, the Office will undertake important work in relation to human rights and equality, and it will be responsible for the Office of the Legislative Counsel.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister also have extremely important joint functions under strand one of the Good Friday Agreement. They convene and preside over the Executive Committee and co-ordinate its work and the response of the Northern Ireland Administration to external relations.
A crucial feature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is that it is a Department headed jointly by myself and the Deputy First Minister. There is, consequently and inevitably, a considerable element of negotiation between the two parts of the Office involved in jointly resolving policies and actions, and this places a particular burden on it which other Departments do not carry.
Members will recall that the report of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister set out in detail some of the functions of the Economic Policy Unit. I do not need to rehearse all those functions in detail. They include undertaking, together with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Secretary of State, negotiations with the Treasury on the size of the Northern Ireland block grant and on European Union and International Fund for Ireland funding; determining, within the Executive Committee, the Administration’s detailed strategic goals and inputting them into the programme of government and the allocation of financial resources; co-ordinating the Executive’s economic policies and monitoring the effectiveness of public spending in achieving the Administration’s economic goals, including having responsibility for the economic and social steering groups; co-ordinating European Union policy and reviewing the progress and effectiveness of European Union and International Fund for Ireland funding; and providing central initiatives such as the Policy Innovation Unit and improving the effectiveness of management in government.
Members will be aware of the importance of equality and human rights matters in the Belfast Agreement. That is reflected in the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act, creating, as it does, a single Equality Commission and establishing the Human Rights Commission. The legislative and executive competence of the Assembly, Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments is constrained by the obligation to act compatibly with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. That convention is now operative with regard to devolved matters in Northern Ireland, even if the Human Rights Act is not yet in force with regard to other matters. The Assembly has no power to pass legislation requiring Ministers or Departments to do anything which discriminates against any person on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. The Act also requires equality schemes to be prepared by public offices. These are critical functions for the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, and they will require sustained ministerial oversight.
I have given a picture of the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I have underlined the wide range and critical importance of those functions in a number of crucial areas but particularly in respect of matters of policy co-ordination. This is a remarkable burden that the Deputy First Minister and I have to carry, and it was for that reason that I reached the conclusion that we urgently need ministerial deputies to whom much of the day-to-day work could be delegated and done under our joint supervision.
In mentioning the extent of the burden, I do not intend in any way to diminish the role of other ministerial colleagues in running their Departments, but I think that it will be acknowledged that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have a role in their own Department and in and through the Executive Committee which differs significantly from that of a departmental Minister.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is crucially important that the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should not suffer from the attention of its Ministers being focused on the wider issues that the Administration as a whole has to face and the very demanding representative role that they both have to play at regional, national and international level. Accordingly, the First Minister and I have decided that it would be in the best interests of our Department if it were to be assisted by two junior Ministers.
I wish to say how we propose junior Ministers should operate and how they should be appointed. Junior Ministers would operate entirely under the direction and control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who will remain responsible to the Assembly for all that happens in that office. That is as it should be.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister operate jointly, decisions have to be taken jointly, and in appointing junior Ministers we must have regard to that. Each of the two junior Ministers will be responsible for assisting the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the exercise of their functions in relation to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister alone answer in the House, or will the junior Ministers also answer in respect of their particular brief?

A Member: In Committees.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: And in Committees.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I will deal with that matter later. As I have said, in parallel with the joint responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, each of the two junior Ministers will have joint responsibility. However, within that arrangement there is substantial specific and urgent work for junior Ministers to take forward, particularly with regard to the Economic Policy Unit, the Equality Unit and work on community relations, the Civic Forum and victims. That is a huge panoply within the Equality Unit — so huge that when we were in serious deliberations about Departments many Members, with some justification, advocated that the issue of equality should have a Department of its own. I am conscious of the fact that there are enormous amounts of work to be done in that unit, not least in relation to the question of women’s rights and the rights of children.
It is understood that it may arise that the junior Ministers, rather than the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, should appear before Assembly Committees to answer questions. We will make arrangements in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide how junior Ministers will appear and exercise accountability to the Assembly.
There have already been suggestions that the appointment of junior Ministers should be taken forward by using the d’Hondt mechanism which led to the appointment of Ministers to this Executive. I understand why that may seem superficially attractive. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister need to have full confidence in the junior Ministers. Those junior Ministers will act under the direction and control of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and will pursue policy objectives that are endorsed by both of us.
To draw junior Ministers from other parties would cause difficulties in at least two ways. First, there would be difficulties for the junior Ministers themselves. They would need to subordinate their own political views to those of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in carrying forward the policy and direction that is jointly established by us. Secondly, there would be difficulties in terms of our confidence in junior Ministers who hold different political philosophies and beliefs.
We have made it clear that this is an initial determination. On the basis of the merits of the arguments, we shall have to consider whether other colleagues will also need junior Ministers. Given the limited amount of time that they have been in post, it has not been possible to form a sensible judgement about that.
There is one safeguard worth mentioning. Any future determination for junior Ministers will automatically result in junior Ministers who are appointed under this determination ceasing to hold office. In other words, any future determination must cover all junior ministerial appointments. That means that there is no question of our adding to the number of junior Ministers without the Assembly’s being able to view the overall position and form a judgement about whether the allocation of junior Ministers is in line with the needs of government.
We have therefore determined, as we were empowered to do by section 19(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that two Members will be appointed as junior Ministers, that the appointments will be made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly, and that the function of the junior Ministers will be to assist the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the exercise of the full range of policy responsibilities of their Office.
This determination meets specific identified needs. Good government requires the appointment of junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to carry forward the important policy areas that the Assembly has decided should reside there.

Mr Speaker: In order to avoid confusion, may I point out that when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are acting jointly that will be identified as such on the Order Paper. Therefore any proposal by them will be a joint proposal. That is why, as in this case, Members will find both of them speaking at the same point in the debate.
When they table a motion to which both names are appended but are not specifically acting as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, one of them may move a motion and make the winding-up speech, or one may move the motion and the other deliver the winding-up speech. There is a difference between that and the provisions in the Initial Standing Orders under which only one person could move a motion and deliver the winding-up speech. I mention that to avoid confusion and because it may be relevant to the amendment in the names of Dr Paisley and Mr Dodds.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all the words after "That" and add
"this Assembly, keeping in mind that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have already six paid assistants in their Office, disapproves their determination to appoint two further, junior Ministers."
The amendment stands in my name and that of Rev Dr Ian Paisley. First, I listened carefully to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and heard the list of responsibilities which the First Minister read out. Any Minister could list a considerable number of responsibilities, some of them in a broad range of policy areas, yet Ministers have one special adviser and one private office. Let us set this matter in context. Members will recall that when proposals were being drawn up about the membership of the Assembly, the Democratic Unionist Party made it clear that 108 Members were far too many. However, it was agreed that there should be 108 Members.
If I am correct, this happened at the particular insistence of one of the smaller parties, which did not succeed in getting elected to this House. It was adamant that six Members should be elected from each of the 18 constituencies. The number of Members was dictated not by the interests or the needs of the people of Northern Ireland but by political considerations and for political interests.
Similarly, when the House determined the number of Departments, it was clear to many of us that there was no real justification in having 10 Departments to serve the people of Northern Ireland and meet the needs of the community. As we pointed out at the time, the Deputy First Minister, Mr Mallon, was on record in a Sunday newspaper as saying that this happened for political reasons, to ensure that sufficient places were created to satisfy the political demands of parties in the House.
Once again, to satisfy paper needs, there is a proposal for two junior Ministers for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Nothing said by the two Gentlemen who have spoken has given any real justification for the appointment of two more Ministers, no doubt with two more private offices, more civil servants at their beck and call and special advisers in addition to those already there — three special advisers, each with a private office.
When one considers what is already at the disposal of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to assist them in the execution of the various duties which they are asked to perform under the terms of the legislation and by agreement with the House, one cannot sensibly come to the conclusion that this justifies the appointment of two more Ministers — other than for the purposes of putting political appointees in positions and creating jobs for the boys.
I was interested to hear Mr Mallon say that it would not be possible or feasible or realistic to have junior Ministers who did not have the same political affiliation as their principals. Yet we have a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister who are of different parties.

A Member: Are they? [Laughter]

Mr Nigel Dodds: Others can develop that point. They have had their differences, yet it is impossible, we are told, to have junior Ministers who are from different parties, even though the entire system of government set up around this Assembly —

Mr Alban Maginness: rose.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Maginness may have questions about who is going to fill these junior ministries and so on, but he should address them to Mr Mallon. There will be opportunities in the debate for others to participate.
The reality is that the argument that junior Ministers may not be from different political parties does not stand up. The two senior Gentlemen are from different political parties, and the Government is made up of different political parties.
I find it disturbing that the determination contains no job description for these junior Ministers. We know only that they will assist the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the exercising of their functions. What functions these junior Ministers will exercise has been left completely open, and we are to be asked to vote for them even though we do not know specifically what they will do. After hearing from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister we still do not know exactly what the lines of accountability are going to be. Will the junior Ministers come forward to answer questions in this House on behalf of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Will they go to the Committee of the Centre?
I hope that we will eventually get a Committee set up to examine the functions of the Centre, for, having taken the decision last week to set up two Standing Committees, I notice that this week we are going to abolish those Committees and set up a different one.
Will the junior Ministers stand in for their superiors in the Committee? That has not been indicated either. It is quite clear that there is no real justification for these appointments. It is purely a case of ensuring a little bit more political patronage so that Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon can satisfy members of their own parties.
Northern Ireland will be the most over-governed part of Europe that it is possible to imagine, with many Ministers, junior Ministers, Assembly Members, councils and quangos. The House is aware of the feedback from the community last week, yet here we are, on the proposal of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, once again being asked to spend more on posts that are unnecessary in terms of the functioning of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Two Ministers are surely enough. They would not want to admit that they are not up to carrying out all the functions that are within the remit of this determination. Are they saying that they cannot handle it, that they do not have the time to do it, or that other pressing engagements take up their time and they need extra help? No proper, coherent case has been presented. It is clearly a case of jobs for the boys, and the House should reject it.

Mr Speaker: The debate will now be on the amendment. If the amendment is passed, there will be no vote on the substantive motion. If the amendment falls, there will be a vote on the motion.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Sinn Féin will vote against the amendment. We recognise the need for junior Ministers. That has been our consistent position. However, we have considerable difficulty with the determination because it is so imprecise. Why is the Assembly being asked to vote for what will be virtually a blank cheque for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister?
We have agreed and have given authority to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to nominate and appoint, but we require them to give us specific information about the functions. The documentation states that the junior Ministers will assist the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in exercising of their functions. That has to qualify as the most indeterminate determination possible.
The point was well made by the proposer of the amendment that the Assembly is not equipped with the information that would allow it to make an informed decision. Is there any good reason why the Assembly was not afforded the courtesy of such information? Why should Assembly Members have to rely on media speculation about what is in the minds of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Even a home help would be given a job description. This is a serious issue.
There is possibly a disagreement about how the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be divided. Perhaps a convention of "I’ll have whatever you’re having, and let us set aside all this trouble with accountability, proportionality and inclusiveness" has been arrived at.
If this Assembly is about anything, it is about a new beginning. We should set jobbery behind us for ever. Throughout the tortuous process that brought the Assembly into existence, Sinn Féin campaigned for transparency and accountability. We argued for checks and balances, democratic inclusiveness and proportionality. We have campaigned, as every party here will testify, for senior stand-alone Departments to be established for equality and children’s rights. We have also argued vociferously that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is top-heavy.
It is not surprising that there is a need for junior Ministers. If we had gone for a more equitable distribution across the Departments, this issue might not now be before the House. Despite our disappointment at losing those arguments in last year’s negotiations, Sinn Féin Members were hopeful that our concerns would be addressed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Regrettably that has not happened. They have spurned an opportunity to demonstrate a wider vision for our society. They have chosen to forgo an opportunity to set aside party political interests for the wider interest. It is a matter of great regret that they have chosen jobs for the boys rather than inclusion.
The Office of the Centre is to become a closed shop for the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. In their remarks, neither the First Minister nor the Deputy First Minister had the grace to admit that that is their position. Sinn Féin will vote against the motion and against the amendment. We shall ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to reconsider this matter, both in terms of the specified functions of the junior Ministers and in respect of the benefits to the new political process of an inclusive approach that could bring some of the smaller parties into the frame. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: As has already been said, this is a rerun of the debate of 15 and 16 February, when we covered the report from the then First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate). In that debate Members expressed concern about openness and accountability. As Mr McLaughlin says, we also discussed the setting up of Departments and the issue of equality, human rights, community relations and victims needing a Department of their own.
The determination is extraordinarily vague. I wish I had thought of the "indeterminate determination" line. I listened to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I think that we have at least established something a little bit more determinate than was initially put on paper. It would have been much better if it had been put on paper in the first place. We seem to be discussing two major functions — the economic policy unit, with European connections and all that that implies, and the equality human rights, et cetera agenda. It is sad that issues such as community relations and victims’ rights are now regarded as an "et cetera". We have not had the level of detail I had hoped for, although the Ministers did start to put a little flesh on the bones.
I am concerned about their raising the issue of confidence between Ministers and junior Ministers. Perhaps it is a statement of the current situation. Confidence is not exactly brimming over in the Chamber. It is understandable that people want their friends beside them. One reason Alliance Party Members will not take any junior Ministerial posts is that we do not see that as a viable option for a party which has no seats in the Executive. I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s assurance that any future determination on junior Ministers will affect the existing appointments. Therefore the matter has to be kept under review.
I have considerable problems with the amendment proposed by the DUP. Mr Dodds eloquently explained some of the problems but failed to outline many of the solutions. Had he been querying the six paid assistants, rather than the appointment of junior Ministers, he might have had more sympathy from my party.
Mr McLaughlin asked for some information. I hope that the Ministers, when they wind up, will add to the information given so far. I take issue with him on one point. He said that the arguments were not won — referring to the setting up of Departments in the December statement. Some Members did win the arguments, but the two largest parties dictated what was going to happen. Members will have to take issue on how that will be handled when the four-year review comes up. Clearly there are problems. Junior Ministers are needed now because the only alternative is to reconsider the way the 10 Departments were cast last December. It has only taken Members 51 weeks to realise the mistakes that were made.
I ask the Ministers to be more specific than they were in their opening speeches. Will they assure Members that there will be real roles for junior Ministers? These have been hinted at, but will there be real and clearly defined roles for these two Ministers, and for any future junior Ministers, before the determination is laid before the House — not a week or two after it?
Mr Mallon said that the Ministers will decide how the junior Ministers will answer to the Assembly. Can an assurance be given that Members will be told exactly how this will be done, if not at the end of this debate, then soon after?
One important possible use of junior Ministers has been ignored so far — namely, on those important cases where cross-departmental issues arise (for example, family and children’s issues). I was nearly going to include the environment, which is supposed to be at the heart of the Government, but Mr Foster has left, and he might not have appreciated it.
Issues relating to families and children are of major concern across a number of Departments. Can Members be assured that the issue will be taken on board and properly co-ordinated within the Centre?

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I also oppose this motion. I oppose it on the grounds of the briefs of the junior Ministers, which my party would argue are far too broad and do not give an opportunity for an impact to be made on the workload and responsibilities of the Assembly. It would have been better if the appointments were to Departments other than the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister. An obvious choice, and many parties have mentioned it, would have been a junior Minister for children. We are also concerned about the lack of information and believe that it makes it impossible for my party to support the motion standing in the names of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
I listened to Sinn Féin’s response. It seems that it is arguing for a slice of the cake rather than considering how the posts would best serve the community. Mitchel McLaughlin said that even home helps would have a job description — people who serve the elderly just as well as two junior Ministers would serve the Centre. Members must put this into context. I am sure that there will be an opportunity tomorrow to talk about what this is going to cost, and the money that the four parties which sit in Government will receive above the basic wage.
If an impact is going to be made, Members must ensure that people are put in positions where they can work across Departments and not just in one area.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am also concerned about the appointment of these two junior Ministers. In annex 1(a) of the report of 15 February 1999, the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were laid out. I note that there were 26 functions. It seems that some of these have now been cut back or disappeared altogether. The determination is so general that it does not tell Members which of these functions are going to be delegated to junior Ministers and which will remain with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
If we are proposing to pay a junior Minister £55,341 we should require the post to have a job description. This represents an increase of £17,305 on a Member’s salary — assuming that the Member does not already hold another position.
The Assembly has already paid out £652,216 — in terms of the allocation of the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Chairpersons, Deputy Chairpersons and Assembly Commissioners — to the four parties in the Government. Before any more appointments are made each post should have a detailed job description, especially if it commands a substantial salary.

Mr David Ervine: Was this figure not agreed unanimously by the Assembly Commission?

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh. I understand that the members of the Assembly Commission operate on a non-party basis and do not necessarily represent their parties when making decisions. The Assembly will decide, and Members should bear that in mind. If they want to be smart, they should get the facts.

Mr Speaker: Members of the Assembly Commission are expected to act in the interests of all the Members of the Assembly.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The point I was making is that in acting in that interest they have allocated £652,216 to four particular parties. It is with that concern in mind that I stress that we must be held accountable. Therefore we should have job descriptions for the posts we continue to allocate. None of the parties are opposed to the position of junior Minister; we simply want to know in detail what that junior Minister is expected to do.
The issue that we come across during our constituency work — and this has already been debated in the Assembly — is that we have missed a trick by not looking at the needs of families and children. Northern Ireland is now the only devolved region that has not got a ministerial portfolio for families and children. Wales and Scotland have such a portfolio.
The motion is about the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, again, I am concerned about the functions contained in that Office. Yesterday I was concerned that two Ministers, each with his own portfolio, took on the portfolio of "Minister for some victims" when they should have been attending to their own portfolios elsewhere.
We need to respond to the desperate needs in the community. Members who listened to last week’s debates should note in particular the issue of the memorial fund — this was raised by victims — and the lack of money coming from that fund to those who have suffered. The question victims constantly ask me — and I am sure they ask other Members — is "Whom do we go to?" It seems that Adam Ingram has this portfolio as a reserved responsibility. If the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has a function in relation to victims, what is it exactly? Is it intented that all four Ministers and Adam Ingram should share this function between them?
I am also concerned that women’s issues, as usual, are last on the agenda. I am not sure if that is because women are far down in the alphabet or because that is where certain people consider they should be — the responsibility of a junior Minister.
We need to pay attention to this. If a junior Ministry on women’s issues had been established we might well have asked why, if the process of nominations to these bodies and implementation bodies is so transparent and so accountable, only 25% of the nominees are women. If we in Northern Ireland are to give ourselves the fresh start which the agreement constantly speaks about, then we have to move away from what has been referred to today over and over again as jobs for the boys — though I assume that sometimes those boys are men.
My party is opposed to the amendment. The position of paid assistants will be discussed in a later debate and has no relevance at this time to the appointment of junior Ministers.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, along with the other Members of this Assembly, will recall that in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ it was the pigs who were in charge of the operation and that Napoleon the pig pointed out that, while all animals were equal, some — namely the pigs — were more equal than others. A point has been well made here that the major parties, particularly the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, have hogged the spoils of devolution. What has happened today is another example of this.
Even the harsh critics of the peace process and of devolution — those on the editorial columns of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and the ‘News Letter’ — were somewhat put out last week to find that one of the Assembly’s first acts was to vote its Members a pay rise. And I made some comments about that.
I am glad that Prof McWilliams has raised this point again, because this is another example of jobs being allotted to Members of the major parties. Can anyone here doubt for a moment that Mr Trimble will appoint one of the worthies from the Ulster Unionist Party or that Mr Mallon will feel most comfortable with a member of the SDLP? In relation to the cross-border bodies, I have already referred to the basis upon which it appeared to me — and, I believe, to many members of the public — the four aspirants for office in the quangos were appointed from the ranks of the Unionist Party, and we are having a rerun here.
I was under the illusion that the Executive (indeed, the entire Assembly) was based not on the usual principle under which democracies operate — there being a majority and an Opposition which hopes to become the majority by persuading people to its way of thinking — but on this wonderful new consensus democracy. It was to be hands across the ocean and across the border, and everybody was to work in the spirit of political ecumenism.
We were to have a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister who were to work like a pair of Siamese twins joined at hip and thigh, and they were going to operate for the betterment of the entire community. Instead, we heard in the Deputy First Minister’s speech the suggestion that what is really needed to make this process work is a junior Minister who is not only a person from your own party but also someone you can trust implicitly because you may have to deal with the enemy within — that, of course, being Mr Trimble and his chum, who will be close by him protecting his back against the ravages of the SDLP.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robert McCartney: Not at the moment.
That is the scenario that we have. When I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee I indicated that the great danger in the Assembly — at that stage members of the minority parties and even Sinn Féin agreed with me — was that we would have a very strong centralised Executive dominated by the two major parties, who would essentially carve up everything. The SDLP could always deliver the Nationalists no matter what Sinn Féin thought, and the Ulster Unionist Party could always deliver, or almost deliver, the Unionists. Between them they would carve up everything and divide the spoils.
I am in favour of this amendment. The Assembly, the Executive and all its outworkings are expensive and, in many cases, unnecessary and, I venture, will be inefficient. When I had discussions with Mr Mallon about the number of Departments, it became perfectly plain — as Mr Dodds has pointed out — that the criterion was not efficiency or having the right number to deliver an effective administration. They decided there should be 10 Departments because, under the d’Hondt system which had already been worked out, that would make for harmony. There would be five Nationalist and five Unionist Ministers.
There was no need for 10 Departments and 108 Members. In Scotland, where the population is three times that in Northern Ireland and where they have greater devolved powers, which include the tax-raising power, there are 129 Members. If they were pro rata with Northern Ireland they would have 350 Members. Similarly, Wales would have 218 Members instead of 60. Mr Dodds is absolutely correct in saying that the Assembly is completely overburdened given the number of Members and the Executive. However, having got that far, we have spawned, on the consensus principle, two First Ministers, 10 Ministers, 10 Committee Chairmen, with the possibility of an additional two, and 12 Deputy Chairmen, all of whom are on the payroll. Now we are to have two quite unnecessary junior Ministers.
I raised the issue of salaries being paid to the porkers in the House of Commons when the power to appoint junior Ministers was discussed. It was not sufficient that we were to be overburdened with Members and Ministers — the porkers — but we were going to be able to let the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, as a matter of largesse and patronage, deliver fodder to the piglets, the baby Ministers and junior Ministers. The Deputy First Minister did not say that this was to be the end of the breeding pen of the piglets. He hinted that by a process, perhaps of artificial insemination, more litters of piglets would be delivered to the other Ministers. He was not ruling out the possibility that these baby porkers would be snuffling away at the fodder at some future date. We could have 10 little grunters all snouting about, each playing a role as a gofer for their respective Ministers.
Prof McWilliams and the other Members got it right when they spoke eloquently about the lack of definition in the duties of these baby Ministers. They do not have anything specific assigned to them. They are going to be gofer piglets — "go for this" and "go for that". They will be at the beck and call of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and they will have to be friendly little piglets who grunt at the correct time because the large boars would be discomfited by having people beside them who were not happy with what they were being asked to do.
I speak of this in jest, but there is a very important, underlying principle which the public should be alerted to. It is the principle that public funds will be provided out of the block grant or from an increase in the regional rate — funds that will not be spent on hospitals or children’s issues or a myriad of social and economic needs and requirements. They are going to be spent on fodder for the piglets. It is all about jobs for the boys.
Let us look at the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Between them they will employ six special advisers on a scale between £22,000 and £70,000. Rest assured few of them will come in at the bottom of the scale. These advisers are specialists who must have particular esoteric knowledge to advise the heavyweights whom they serve. They are going to cost a lot of money and will be at the beck and call of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Of course that is only the top layer — the close chums to whom the new Minister will be added. There is also a raft of highly qualified civil servants with specific tasks who will be assisting the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the discharge of their duties.
The truth is that these junior Ministers are being appointed for the purpose of affording another means of party political control to the parties that really matter. The Northern Ireland Office was not interested in any of the little parties because none of them could deliver individually or collectively. Members of the Women’s Coalition, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Alliance Party should be under no illusions that they have any clout here. They do not. They are here to make up the numbers. It was necessary to have 108 Members for the purpose of distribution. Members should realise that far from being a democratic Assembly this is an Assembly created by the machinations of the Northern Ireland Office to serve the interests of the British Government. The numbers, the distributions, the system and the placing of power in an Executive are designed to serve those interests.
I was surprised when I read two speeches of the Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, in which he talked about an Assembly that was accountable to the Executive. He talked not about an Executive that was accountable to the Assembly but about an Assembly that was accountable to the Executive — and that was repeated twice. I pointed this out to Senator George Mitchell. He said that he would take it up with the Secretary of State, but he thought that perhaps it was a mistake. If it was a mistake it was one that was repeated not once but twice, and it was never remedied.
In the wider scope of things Members may ask what Bob McCartney is talking about — this is about two junior Ministers. These two junior Ministers and the power of the two major parties to appoint them goes right to the heart of the matter. It is an example of the power that will continue to be exercised through the Executive by the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party.
Some parties in the Assembly are not minnows; they are budding herrings. I am talking about Sinn Féin and the DUP — both substantial parties in their own right, but in this game not carrying a great deal more clout than the smaller parties collectively.
I support the amendment. This is an example of unnecessary political jobbery. Nothing has ever arisen to show us that it is necessary. I share and sympathise with the views of Monica McWilliams and others about the criteria or job descriptions for these posts. The reason there is no clearly defined job description — a Minister for children’s issues, a Minister for women and children’s issues, or a Minister for any of the other matters — is that this is not about servicing a need. These appointments are about servicing party needs.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I support the amendment. At a sitting of the Assembly on 15 February 1999 I did not move the motion that I had given notice of to have your position as Presiding Officer of the House formally endorsed and for you to become permanent Presiding Officer of the New Assembly, as it was then.
Let me refresh your memory by reading from the Hansard report of that sitting:
"When I first considered placing this motion before the Assembly, it was reasonable for me to expect that it would have the support of all parties. However, over the past few days it has become clear to me that the prospect of all-party support for the motion has disappeared. Indeed, I have received reasonably sound information to suggest that the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party intend to oppose it.
I feel that I have a duty to make clear the reasons for these parties’ opposition to the motion to everyone in the Chamber, to those in the Galleries, and to the wider public. It gives an indication of the shape of things to come. We will have in the Assembly what in the business world would be known as a cartel. Those who have been preaching the gospel of inclusivity and responsibility sharing are about to carve up between them all the positions of responsibility in the Assembly. These jobs for the boys will be shared between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP."
I mentioned that this was the shape of things to come, and what we are witnessing today is a further outworking of exactly that mentality. We have heard words like "inclusiveness" and the high-sounding reasons for bringing people together to share responsibility and authority. The reality is, Mr Speaker, that in the weeks to come you will need to fix yourself very firmly to your seat. There will probably be people here eyeing up your position, not because they believe that they have more ability or that they would serve the Assembly better than you, but because of the job and the money that goes with it.
The Assembly is rapidly running out of credibility as far as the public is concerned. What is happening here today is a further demonstration of that. This process has been based on deceit and lying. It has been based on lies, manipulation and propaganda on the part of the Northern Ireland Office. It is hardly surprising that we are faced with the sordid little mess that has been presented to us today. I look forward to a day when all of this is swept away — a day when all the items that are cluttering up the site can be removed and a proper, clear and democratic process can be restored, with an Assembly that is truly accountable to the people, an Assembly that exists because of the will and the wish of the people.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Over the years many of us have listened to the gross accusation that the old Stormont, the ancien régime, existed on the basis of corruption, that it was based on jobs for the boys and that Catholics need not apply. [Interruption] I hear people from the SDLP shouting "Hear, hear." Of course, it was black propaganda; it was lies. The reality is that today the SDLP are party to corruption. They are party to a decision that is about jobs for the boys, and people who are not part and parcel of their party, people who are not yes-men, need not apply. Over 400 jobs in the Assembly are to be advertised, and there have been allegations that those jobs will also be jobs for the boys.

Mr Alban Maginness: It ill behoves the DUP to make any criticism in relation to this matter, given the fact that your own two Ministers appointed parliamentary private secretaries without even coming to the Assembly to tell us that you had done so. You did this quietly and at your own bidding; nobody else asked you to do that, and you attempted to employ them.

Mr Speaker: Order. I encourage Members to speak through the Chair rather than directly to each other.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for drawing that to the attention of Mr Maginness.
My party pays certain members to fulfil a political role, and it raises money to do so. It is perfectly entitled to do that. The money does not come out of the public budget or out of the Assembly’s purse. It is hard-earned money, and we can do as we wish with it. There is nothing corrupt about this; we did not have to bring it before the Assembly for approval by the Member or his party. [Interruption]
We did not. It was a decision made within our party, and one we stand by. The Member will know that in other Assemblies across Europe there are in parties similar functionaries who are paid to fulfil a certain role.
The issue is that in the first few days of the Assembly, since the Executive was established, we have seen more exploitation by the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. We have seen exploitation of the party political role — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Posts have been given to party hacks or party friends and to people who are not fit for them.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The SDLP puts out the long arm to Europe, pulls back a former member and puts him in the First Minister’s Office. I have not found out whether he is still being paid by the European Parliament.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: In today’s ‘Irish News’ it is suggested that the SDLP are paying daughters of Members with regard to the new posts that were established yesterday in Armagh. That point will raise its head again and again. Other Members referred to an article in the ‘Irish News’ which states that a number of positions have been given to party hacks and party faithful. I will not go over the names that Members have already read into the record.
None of the posts the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are asking us to vote for have been equality-tested. We hear about equality and fair representation, but these posts have been tested to see who is fit to follow every whim of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Those who match up to that standard will be appointed.
The comments made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have exposed the fact that Northern Ireland is to be over-bureaucratised. For years democrats across Northern Ireland have complained that there is not enough people power, that we do not have democracy and that we need real and accountable democracy and access to the levers of power. Over the past few months there has been an increase in bureaucracy and a decrease in democracy. In the past, three Ministers serviced six Departments. Now we have 10 Departments and 10 Ministers, and we are to have two junior Ministers. That is an increase in bureaucracy, not an increase in democracy, and that is sad.
Who is to pay for these junior Ministers? The answer is that the money will come from the public purse. MrDurkan (the Finance Minister) and Mr McGimpsey have been on the radio voicing their concerns about the budget and how they hope to make the figures add up. They will need a creative accountant, some stir-frying and bit of cooking to get the books to balance. The amount that will be taken from the public purse to service the new appointments will be a public scandal. I do not often agree with the leader of the Women’s Coalition, but she pointed to the tip of the iceberg when she spoke about how much this will cost.
What is the real purpose of these appointments? Is it accountability, transparency, openness and real democracy? The reason for appointing the two junior Ministers — Ministers literally without portfolio who can stick their noses into any business the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister decide — is to prevent proper Assembly scrutiny of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Their actions will cover over what the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are doing and prevent the establishment of proper scrutiny Committees to examine and probe.
At the commencement of this debate Mr Mallon said
"It was in the best interests of our Departments".
After voting for an exorbitant pay rise, he now wants someone else to do his job. As Mr Dodds said, if the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister do not feel up to the job, they should resign. To appoint someone else to do the jobs that they are paid to do is a scandal. The Deputy First Minister said that good government requires these posts. Good government does not require a waste of resources or the extending of bureaucracy and the diminishing of democracy. When Mr Dodds moved the amendment on behalf of my party he spoke about sincerity. I share the view that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are not sincere when they talk about equality, openness and transparency. Theirs is the most insincere position of all.
Let us call a spade a spade. This is a carve-up for party political purposes. I noted the comments of Sinn Féin inside and outside the Chamber. They were crying crocodile tears and saying that these junior Ministers should not be appointed: "Appoint us instead. Appoint Sinn Féin. Give us the jobs."
They do not object to the waste of resources or to the abuse of the democratic process. What they object to is that they have not been given the jobs, and that is another public scandal.

Mr Denis Haughey: Perhaps the Member could inform me if he and his party are declaring that they have no interest in any further junior ministerial appointments and that they would eschew any nomination for such?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: If the Member is confirming that his party will be proposing more and more junior Ministers and that he wants those posts because he probably will not get this one — he got a chairmanship last week — that is a matter for him, and I look forward to those proposals.
My party has made its position clear in the amendment, and anyone who supports our position can vote for the amendment. I hope that we will get support. It would not serve the purposes of open and transparent democracy for the motion in the name of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be passed.
Before giving way to Mr Haughey I mentioned Sinn Féin’s using this for cover because it wants these jobs for the boys. It believes that this is the way it can justify what it has been about over the years. The more jobs available, the more access to power Sinn Féin will get. Of course, it makes Bobby Sands’s stance all the better. It proves that it was right. Sinn Féin wants these jobs only to undermine and destroy this country. It has no interest in preserving or defending it or making it run better.
Let me send a warning to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and to the parties. They will probably proceed with these appointments. They will pick party hacks and party faithful. We have already heard the public outcry against certain Ministers with links to terrorist organisations who are now in the new Executive. May I suggest that if they are interested in salvaging what little credibility they have, they should not appoint these junior Ministers. If they are to appoint junior Ministers, let them be careful about whom they do appoint. According to speculation in the local press, certain names have been mentioned: people whom, in other places, the Law Society has described as unfit for public office; people who, in other places, have been told that they cannot practise alone as solicitors. If that is the calibre of people that the two parties are going to select, God help this country, and God help good government here. It is wrong and obnoxious to have this increase in largesse for the sole purpose of feathering the nests of the First Minister’s and the Deputy First Minister’s parties.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I oppose the amendment. I wish to address a point made by Mr Paisley Jnr. I am amazed that Members can claim to know what Sinn Féin is saying. It annoys me sometimes that they should be sitting here with Sinn Féin.
We agree that there is a need for junior Ministers, but we do not believe that they should be attached to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We argue that they should be appointed for specific areas.
We strongly advocate that one of these posts should be in a department of children’s rights, given that children make up one third of the population and we have the highest birth rate in the European Union. Many children live in areas of high and long-term unemployment, and 37% of them are affected by poverty. Also 39% of young people have mental health problems.

A Member: And hundreds are beaten by paramilitaries.

Ms Sue Ramsey: The Member supports what I am saying about a junior Minister for children.
In an average week three children under the age of 16 will be raped and a further 12 will be indecently assaulted. The overall picture in relation to children and children’s rights is a negative one. Sometimes I am ashamed that all the parties in the Assembly claim to represent the rights of children. However, when it comes to promoting those rights, their interest ends.
I agree with some Members that it is a case of jobs for the boys. Although the 10 Departments all have a remit for children, there is not a holistic policy approach. I am also concerned to ensure that the appointment of junior Ministers should not be looked upon as another opportunity for the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP to appoint some of their Colleagues who missed out on becoming full Ministers.
We should send the clear message that we are here to deliver benefits and to recognise the sizeable section of our community which has so often been ignored. When speaking about children, Members often say that they will do this and that for them. However, when it comes to the bit, no one cares because children do not have a vote. We should send out a clear message that children’s rights should be at the centre of the Assembly.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In the debate on the amendment many parties expressed concern about the way in which the proposal has been put forward, the lack of detail in terms of the functions that are described in the written determination and the notion that the two parties that are represented by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should take these two positions of patronage to bolster their party positions.
Our amendment is totally consistent. We have pointed to the fact that this is not the place to talk about special advisers. We have mentioned the extent of existing support for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the raft of civil servants.
I have not heard any proper case for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister requiring two junior Ministers in addition to their raft of advisers and supporters to carry out the functions of that Office. It has clearly emerged during the debate that there is concern as to how the public will view this. Already a number of parties have described it as jobs for the boys. It is clear that that is what it is.
I urge Members to support our amendment. If a proper and reasonable case can be made, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can come back to the House. They have all the support and back-up that they need to carry out their current responsibilities. No proper case has been made for the appointment of these two junior Ministers. The determination is devoid of any job description or detail as to what these people are to do. I again urge Members to support the amendment.

Rt Hon David Trimble: In replying to the debate I may not pick up every point made. However, I would like to focus on the key theme of quite a few contributors. Mr McLaughlin was the first to state it when he referred to the determination as being too imprecise. Others said that when they first saw the determination they felt that it did not convey enough information to them.
Members should bear in mind that the determination necessarily used formal language. It had to refer to the range of functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It would not have been possible for the determination to refer to specific matters.
Several Members spoke about equality and they said how important that was. It is something we acknowledge. We appreciate how crucial the equality unit within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is going to be in the effective functioning of the Administration as a whole. We are well aware of the need to ensure that equality aspects have been properly examined with regard to every legislative measure and almost every policy issue. We know how important it is that legislative measures and policy issues should not be farmed out to 10 different Departments to have 10 different standards applied. There will be only one standard.
It would not have been wise to mention only that matter and to delegate it to a junior Minister. That would be to completely misunderstand the nature of the operation. This is not a delegation of any function of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This is a matter of the appointment of junior Ministers who will act under the direction and control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at all times. No function will be delegated to them. We will give them work to do, and that work may well be in the area of equality.
It was not appropriate, nor was it possible in terms of the formal language that is necessarily used in the determination, to assign specific roles to junior Ministers. Furthermore, when one considers the joint nature of the Office, Members will see how inappropriate that would be. It would be quite wrong for one junior Minister to be assigned to equality and another to the economic policy unit. That would clearly be wrong when it is a joint Office. We cannot have a joint Office shared between two parties and then delegate part of that Office to one party. That runs counter to the whole nature of the operation. While junior Ministers may be given a responsibility with regard to economic policy or equality, it will have to be done in a manner in which the Office operates as a whole. It will have to be done with a degree of joint approach, as is appropriate, and with the ability to adapt it to the needs of the particular situation.
The determination necessarily had to cover the whole range of matters. However, the Deputy First Minister and I have a number of clear ideas in mind about what should be done and how it should be carried out. We also have a clear understanding of how it will have to be adjusted from time to time to meet the needs that are there.
The needs are considerable. I have mentioned the economic policy unit and the equality unit. They are major elements. However, there is also the very significant matter of cross-departmental issues. The agreement provides the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with the task of co-ordinating policy across Departments. This is a more significant role with regard to this form of Administration than it would be with regard to a conventional one. As this is a multi-party Administration, a compulsory coalition of four different parties that do not always see eye to eye — indeed, we have difficulty seeing the eyes of some of our ministerial colleagues from time to time — the need for co-ordination at the centre becomes more important.
It adds to the burden because of the multi-party nature of the Administration as a whole and the multi-party nature of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That underlines the need for this.
Reference was made to co-ordination on particular issues. That is something to which we will be paying very considerable attention. We are well aware of the need for a degree of co-ordination and focus on matters which do not fall within a single Department and where
"communication and co-operation between departments may be difficult because of the nature of this compulsory coalition".
We will keep in mind particular things mentioned — for example, women’s issues and family issues. It is part of the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to keep these cross-departmental issues in mind and to ensure that such matters do not lose out in the competition between Departments. I hope Members understand why the question of job descriptions is not appropriate. It is a matter of relating to the range of functions in the Office as a whole.
I would like to touch on some particular issues very briefly. Reference was made to victims. It is somewhat unsatisfactory that certain functions remain within the Northern Ireland Office while others have come to a Northern Ireland Department. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has a role with regard to liaison, but Departments such as Social Development and Health, Social Services and Public Safety also have a role. We are aware of the need to give a priority to victims’ issues. I hope the Assembly will see before long that we have responded to it in a very particular way.
Children were mentioned. Equality, particularly in matters relating to targeting social need, covers the rights of children. They will continue to be a significant priority for us.
One comment was made which I thought was spectacularly inappropriate. That came, of course, from Mr McCartney, who said that this was not about servicing a need, but simply about patronage and departmental control between parties. That is utterly wrong. This is about serving a need. This is about ensuring that this Administration delivers a good quality service to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It is also about ensuring that, in spite of the unique nature of this Administration, what comes out at the end is co-ordinated and integrated, takes account of the crucial issues of equality and related matters and delivers a quality service to the people.

Mr Seamus Mallon: May I first of all make reference to what I regard as a new low in the standard of contribution. I refer to that made by Mr Wilson. I will leave it at that, but at times in the debate I thought that some people plumbed the depths. I did not understand how low they could go.
I do not wish to cover ground which has already been covered by the First Minister. I wish to make a number of points as briefly as I possibly can. In doing so, I will not be able to make reference to all the points that were raised.
The question of a job description has been raised. Let us not forget that the reason for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rests in the Good Friday Agreement. This Office was not thought up, devised or schemed by the First Minister or myself. It was devised by all of the pro-agreement parties as a unique form of Administration which is not easy for anyone, and it will not be easy when it comes to making any decision. While we are engaged in craw-thumping, however, can we all remember that all the pro-agreement parties agreed this unique type of arrangement?
May I turn to job description — [Interruption] I will not give way. The hon Member’s party has had its say — and plenty of it.
May I very quickly list some of the areas the job description covers. There is the economic policy unit, which, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel, is one of the cross-cutting parts of the arrangement that the First Minister referred to. There is the equality unit, which many parties thought, as I said earlier, could stand with validity as a Department on its own. If that is the case, surely it deserves the type of junior Minister that we are talking about to ensure that it properly functions among the economic policy unit, European affairs, international affairs, the Civic Forum, victims, women’s issues, community relations, human rights, public appointments policy, machinery of government — to name just a few. The First Minister or myself did not decide these. They were decided in the agreement and in the legislation upon which the agreement is based. Let us not forget that. I would have thought that a fair job description of the type of function that will be required of junior Ministers.
Let me mention something that touched me deeply. Mr McLaughlin asked why the Assembly should rely on media speculation. Why indeed, especially when Mr McLaughlin’s party declared its position on this in a Sunday newspaper known as ‘Ireland on Sunday’ and demanded — not requested but demanded — one of these posts for Sinn Féin and one for the DUP? So when we are into the craw-thumping bit about costs let us remember that the craw-thumping can work in two directions.
Mr McLaughlin went further. He made a point of telling us that in the negotiations prior to the setting up of the Departments his party proposed that children’s issues should be a stand-alone Department. It did nothing of the sort, and it is on record that that is not the case. Those papers are on record, and I invite Mr McLaughlin and anyone else concerned to examine them.
He also spoke about Sinn Féin’s contribution to the negotiating of — let me use these terms carefully — checks and balances in the arrangements for the Assembly. The reality is that during the two years those negotiations were taking place they opted out of any discussion on strand one — any discussion to do with the Assembly, the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister, not to mention any checks or balances of that nature.
May I also remind Mr McLaughlin that on the question of children’s rights — and that is a huge issue — his party holds the portfolios of the two Departments jointly responsible for bringing forward a children’s strategy, along with Mr Dodds in his ministerial position. Let us see how all Departments — and I mean all — handle children’s issues internally and elsewhere.
May I also remind the House that one of the most important functions of the Office of the Centre will be its responsibility for targeting social need. It will also be responsible for overseeing human rights. Nowhere will that need — and the application of that need — be more evident than in ensuring the well-being of children.
I would have liked to have the time to go through the contributions made by each Member, but I will make a few general points. I understand the position of Members who would like to have a junior Ministry for their party or who would like to have junior Ministries for various parties. So would I. If the First Minister and I had made a different decision it might have been easier — much easier — for us, but, while I do not want to get into the business of casting aspersions, I can think of some people in the DUP that I would not want to put in charge of children’s issues, women’s issues or any other issue. That would be to the detriment of this Administration.
If Members think about what I have said they may consider that it was said advisedly.
I can think of others and other parties who have a craw-thumping attitude, but they stated publicly that they wanted a junior Minister. I would like to see all parties have a junior Minister. If that had been the proposal, would we have had the financial analysis that has been put forward today? Would we have had all this self-righteousness? Would we have had all the variation between pontification and the gutter stuff that we have heard from some quarters?
There is a serious and immediate need for the appointment of junior Ministers. I refer Members to that job description. I refer them to the future well-being of this Administration. I refer them to the fact — and reference was made to this — that it is right that Members of this Assembly should be appointed. There were one or two references to the fact that other advisers might be able to do this. That suggestion was implicit — other advisers might be able to do this. The First Minister and I could not possibly have agreed to that. That decision-making process is a matter for this House and no one else. It is most surprising, not to say almost shocking, that those who are and have been attacking the position of policy advisers may themselves have certain ideas on that matter, that they may themselves have made indications of that nature, that they may themselves recognise that there are a remarkable number of problems within any Department on which help and advice are needed.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to refer to every point that was made. However, all points will be replied to in writing.
I look forward to the experience of applying the new targeting social need (TSN) in the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. In those circumstances I look forward to going to all the parties to tell them what the equality unit and equality legislation requires of them. I will try to explain to everyone that women’s issues and children’s issues should not be used as a political, emotional brush to beat people with. They are much too serious for that.
This is a crucial responsibility, and it is a responsibility which the First Minister and I are determined to fulfil. I will say it again: we need the two junior Ministers to ensure that the work in that job description is carried out and that the crucial issues, especially those which centre on TSN, economic policy, children, women and human rights, with other factors, are properly dealt with. That is what this is about, and I regret that some Members have helped to degrade a motion which is to the benefit of those in society who need it most.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy First Minister deliberately to mislead the House? There is nothing in the agreement about junior Ministers — nothing. He has tried to achieve a cheap sell to the public. But I welcome his declaration of war on the Democratic Unionist people. We accept that, we take up the gauntlet —

Mr Speaker: Order. I can understand that Members may want to make points, but points of order need to be points of order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I concur with some of the comments made about the new dimension to Mr Mallon as Deputy First Minister, which we are seeing —

Mr Speaker: You asked for a point of order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: It is a point of order. Mr Mallon said that Mr Wilson had stooped to new depths in debate. I want him to clarify what comment he was referring to.

Mr Sammy Wilson: And which Mr Wilson.

Mr Speaker: I assume that the point of order is that there are a number of Messrs Wilson in the House. Given that the Deputy First Minister did not clarify which of those Members he was referring to, none of them can query it on behalf of any of the others. Therefore we should move to the vote.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The Deputy First Minister made an attack in general on Unionist Members. It would be helpful if he could identify on behalf of the Wilson clan —

Mr Speaker: Members made attacks on each other during the debate — it was characteristic of the debate. I cannot take it as a point of order.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 67.
AYES
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 38.
AYES
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, Sean Farren, John Fee, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
NOES
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Pat Doherty, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, Michelle Gildernew, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the number of junior ministerial offices, the procedure for appointment and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office.
The sitting was suspended at 6.55 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: I propose to make a slight change to the order of the rest of the business. There are two motions in the name of Mr Conor Murphy which would make amendments to the Standing Orders that were agreed at the last sitting in respect of the two Committees that were set up to scrutinise the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, given the debate that is likely to ensue, not on the substantive motion that follows on the Committee of the Centre but on the amendment, there is the prospect, if the amendment and the substantive motion are carried, of negativing the two proposals in Mr Conor Murphy’s name and of those Committees, whose terms of reference are set out, no longer existing. For this reason I propose that we defer the two issues until later. Whether or not the two proposals remain competent will depend on the outcome of the votes on the Committee of the Centre proposal and the amendment. Given that this will save time, I am sure there will be general agreement.

Assembly Members: Code of Conduct

Mr Speaker: We proceed to the motion on the Code of Conduct. Members may be surprised to see a motion on a Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules identical to the one that was unanimously voted through by the Assembly earlier this year. The reason is that the transitional sections in the Northern Ireland Act do not permit a decision taken by the New Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter to be carried forward beyond devolution. We must formally take the same decision again. The Register of Members’ Interests before devolution was desirable; it is now a legal requirement. It is impossible to get proper guidance without the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, which are only properly extant if the Assembly has agreed on them post devolution.
Motion made:
That this Assembly agrees the resolution set out in Annex A to ‘The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members’ [NIA 1] as made by the New Northern Ireland Assembly on 1 March 1999. — [Mr B Hutchinson]

Mr Norman Boyd: Mr Speaker, you have answered some of my queries about the Register of Members’ Interests. I spoke to the Clerk of Standards on Friday 10 December and asked him why, by 21 May 1999, 17 out of 18 Sinn Féin Members had not complied with the directive that this was to be completed by 30 April or with the letter of 30 April which said that we had to comply by 21 May.
Would it be in the public interest to find out why 17 of the 18 Sinn Féin Members had not declared their interests? What had they to hide? Do Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and others in Sinn Féin have other incomes which should have been declared?

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me repeat what I said. Prior to devolution there was no statutory requirement in respect of the Register. It may have been desirable to have interests declared, but there was no statutory requirement. That statutory requirement came with devolution, and it cannot be met without the passage of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules.
I caution Members against raising matters of privilege on the Floor of the House, for a number of reasons. The due process is for such a matter to be raised with the Clerk of Standards — and the Member has indicated that he has indeed sought such guidance — and then, if appropriate, for it to be taken to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
If such a matter is to be raised on the Floor of the House, it ought to be contained in a motion on the Order Paper, and if it were to be debated on the Floor of the House tonight under the auspices of the current motion, two things would be accomplished besides those I have already mentioned. First, it could be argued that such a debate would diminish due process if the matter were later raised in the Standards and Privileges Committee. Secondly, if there were a vote on the matter, there would be no way of properly discussing any possibility of appeal. The proper process is to go through the Clerk of Standards and then to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and any decision of that Committee could then be appealed on the Floor of the Assembly. If the matter had already been dealt with here, there would be no proper process for appeal. I strongly caution Members that this is not something that we should debate now, because of the timing, because of the place and because of due process.

Mr Norman Boyd: Is it in order to make comments on the Code of Conduct for Members?

Mr Speaker: It is.

Mr Norman Boyd: May I draw the attention of the Assembly to the first page. The public-duty section says that Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the trust placed in them by the public. Members have a duty to act in the interests of the electorate and the community as a whole, and they have a special duty to their constituents. It is therefore obscene and appalling that Members who, in the words of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations which carry out shootings, bombings, robberies, racketeering and extortion are now in positions in Government. Thus we are seeing all the evil of the "ballot-box and Armalite" strategy.
I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the seven principles of public life. The first principle is that of selflessness. Holders of public office should take decisions that are solely in the public interest and not to get financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Back in 1986 the new Minister of Education said
"In the whole of Western Europe there is not a revolutionary or socialist organisation that enjoys as much popular support as we do, and we must be conscious of that fact and build on it."
How does Martin McGuinness reconcile the IRA Army Council with that first principle of selflessness?
On the second principle of integrity, the Minister of Education —

Mr Speaker: I must return to what I said earlier. If the Member raises specific issues which are almost accusations — and the Member of whom he is speaking is not here to respond — he will prejudice any due process. If the Member wishes to comment on the Code of Conduct itself or on the Guide, that will be perfectly appropriate, but comments about Members who are here, and especially about those who are not here, are not in order.

Mr Norman Boyd: The point is that since the Belfast Agreement there have been murders, shootings, beatings and exilings by Sinn Féin/IRA.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the matter before us not whether the Code of Conduct is appropriate to the needs of the House rather than whether individual Members are observing it? Will you please give a ruling that will make it clear to the Member that this is the case and that he is not entitled to raise these matters now?

Mr Speaker: Mr Haughey is correct. The Code of Conduct must be appropriate to the needs of the House, but it goes further than that: its purpose is to fulfil the law. Were we not to agree this issue it might be argued that the House was in default of its responsibilities. That is an entirely separate issue from any questions, queries or accusations in respect of Members which, as I have already ruled, are out of order.
I must say to Mr Boyd that if he is merely going to raise questions about other Members, individually or as a group, I will have to rule that his speech is out of order and proceed to the next item of business. If, however, he is going to address what is in the document under discussion, that is another matter.
I must caution the Member not to return to his original line.

Mr Norman Boyd: If the Code of Conduct is to mean anything, it should not be abused by certain Members who are now in positions of authority.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: The whole point of the Code is that Members will be able to be tested against it, but it will not be possible to apply that test until the Code has been agreed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees the resolution set out in Annex A to ‘The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members’ [NIA 1] as made by the New Northern Ireland Assembly on 1 March 1999.

Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: There is a misprint on the Order Paper. In the words "After Standing Order 52(4)" the reference should be to Standing Order 53.

Mr Alex Maskey: I beg to move the following motion:
In Standing Order 53 add the following paragraphs:
"(5) The Business Committee shall consist of thirteen Members.
(6) Each party delegation shall be entitled to cast the number of votes equivalent to the number of Members who adhere to the Whip of that party."
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Ba mhaith liom an leasú ar Ordú Seasta 53 a mholadh agus ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I wish to propose this amendment to Standing Order 53, and, a Chathaoirligh, I wish to say a few words.
These changes are supported by all of the parties that are participating in the Assembly’s Committees. The intention is to carry on from the model which was used in CAPO in the early days of the Assembly. In spite of the fact that there were Members who were politically opposed to one another fundamentally, they nevertheless worked well together in a consensual way to try to ensure that the business of the Assembly was conducted in a proper and orderly way.
I also wish to point out that the changes seek to re-establish the very important principles of inclusivity and proportionality — I believe that this was lost sight of today by some senior Members, including the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — by increasing the membership from 11 to 13. This will allow all the other parties to have representation on this Committee and will give proper weight to the proportionality principle, since voting, if there is voting, will be on a proportional basis.

Mr Speaker: Because the motion seeks to change Standing Orders, it requires cross-community support. As I have accepted in the past that no dissent implies cross-community support, I will treat this on the same basis. However, if there is any dissent I shall have to call a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 53 add the following paragraphs:
"(5) the Business Committee shall consist of thirteen Members.
(6) Each party delegation shall be entitled to cast the number of votes equivalent to the number of Members who adhere to the Whip of that party."

Assembly Business Committee

Resolved:
That the Business Committee shall consist of
The Speaker Mr Davis Mr Ford Mr B Hutchinson Mr Maskey Mr Morrow Mr C Murphy Dr McDonnell Mr McGrady Ms McWilliams Mrs I Robinson Mr Watson Mr J Wilson. — [Mr Maskey]

Assembly Standing Orders

Motion made:
In Standing Order 54, line 1, delete "Standing" and insert "Ad Hoc". — [Mr J Wilson]

Mr Denis Haughey: I no longer have any authority in relation to Standing Orders, but Members will recall that I was co-Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders with Mr Cobain during the shadow period of the Assembly. I am therefore in a position to inform the House about the deliberations of that Committee and its conclusions.
At the end of our period on the Committee several matters remained to be tidied up. As Members, Mr Cobain and I have attempted to assist the House in tidying up those loose ends, and a number of matters have been dealt with in that way. Unfortunately, this matter is one that we missed, and I should like to inform the House of the circumstances in which it arose.
The Standing Orders Committee considered the matter, and it was agreed that equality proofing of certain legislative measures which would come before the House should be carried out by what would effectively be an Ad Hoc Committee. There were discussions about what this Committee and others, apart from the statutory departmental Committees, should be called. It was in that context that the Standing Order which mistakenly referred to the Equality Proofing Committee as a Standing Committee came before the House.
Standing Committees are set up to exist throughout the lifetime of the Assembly, but that would not be appropriate for this Committee. I chaired the meeting in which this issue was considered, and it was agreed, after legal advice had been taken from the Office of the Clerk of the House, that I would propose amending Standing Order 54 accordingly. I will read briefly from the speaking notes which were prepared for me by the Committee staff. They say
"The Committee on Standing Orders wishes to make a minor amendment to Standing Order 54. Originally, when drawing up Standing Orders, we had thought it appropriate that the special Committee on Equality Matters referred to in paragraph 11 of Strand 1 of the agreement should be a Standing Committee. However, on further reflection, and having taken more advice on the matter, we are clear that this Committee is not one which should have the fixity of a Standing Committee. It needs to be constituted and reconstituted as necessary to deal with the matters referred to it. Its membership will vary according to the subject at hand to ensure that its deliberations are not prejudiced and that no conflicting interests are allowed to bear upon matters. This Committee is unique, or, as the agreement puts it, ‘will be a special Committee’, but its constitution is intended to be ad hoc and not permanent. It is therefore a special Ad Hoc Committee and should be so described, and that is the effect of the change to the Standing Order that is being proposed."
I thank Mr Wilson and congratulate him on spotting this deficiency. I support his motion.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. I do not entirely accept the explanation given by Mr Haughey. Indeed, I wish to draw attention to the fact that during the last few meetings of CAPO — now the Business Committee — it was the fairly universal, if not unanimous, opinion of its members that the final work of the Standing Orders Committee was not of a very high standard. Indeed, it was most unsatisfactory, and I made that point myself. I can name Members who shared my view. If I remember correctly, it was shared by Members from all the parties sitting around the Committee table.
I do not accept for one moment that paragraph 11 of Strand 1 intended this to be an Ad Hoc Committee. In spite of what the Deputy First Minister said, we did have lengthy discussions in the Good Friday negotiations on equality and related issues. This very question came up, and it was deliberated upon at length. We can deal with that later. Recent work by the Standing Orders Committee has not been good. Mr Wilson, as I recall, is not even a member of the Standing Orders Committee. There is an agenda at work here.
This motion is seeking to downgrade the functions of this Committee. In my view — and I have argued this at the Committee in the last week or two — if a Committee is reduced from being a standing one to being an ad hoc one, its standing is reduced. There is no doubt whatsoever that our society needs to do a great deal of work on refocussing and reorientating itself on this very complex question of equality.
A Standing Committee becomes an expert Committee, a Committee that can draw upon the relevant people in any Department. If the Committee feels that there is a difficulty with legislation in a Department, it can call on people from that Department and from the departmental Committee — perhaps even Ministers and Chairpersons — and any other expertise it may require.
I ask the Assembly to take this matter seriously. The best thing to do is appoint a Standing Committee. Indeed, it is a Standing Committee and should remain so in order to gain expertise. In view of the likely response to the other changes on the agenda tonight, it is all the more important that the equality issue is protected in the Assembly.
This Committee is being downgraded, and I have no doubt that the equality agenda will be further downgraded as a result of other changes tonight. This is a disgrace. I understand why some people in the Chamber wish to downgrade the equality provisions, but I do not think that other parties should collude in that. I ask Members not to support this motion.

Mr Alan McFarland: There is a degree of confusion here. As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, I would like to say a few words. I do not wish to address items of business concerning the Department of the Centre, which is where the equality issue rests. However, if this motion is resolved, there will be a Committee to examine equality issues.
That Committee, if the Assembly agrees to it, will be permanent. The Assembly agreed this Committee last week, but a change has been proposed. The Equality Committee under discussion is specifically designed to have the legal aspects of equality referred to it by the Assembly. If someone in the Assembly is not happy about the equality aspects of a particular Bill, he can have it referred to the Committee for re-examination. In theory it will have been examined already, but if a Member is not happy about it the Assembly, if it agrees this motion to amend the Standing Order, will be able to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the matter further. As I understand it, this Committee was not designed to look at equality matters per se, which is why it is changing from being a standing one to being an ad hoc one and why there will be a Committee looking at equality, in one form or another, I hope, after these deliberations.

Mr Mark Durkan: I listened to what Mr Maskey said about the contribution to the negotiations and to his suggestion that Mr Haughey’s reference to paragraph 11 of the agreement was a misrepresentation of what was intended by those who negotiated the agreement. As one who had a considerable hand in drafting paragraphs 11 to 13, which is essentially the special procedure that will concern this Committee, I can tell Mr Maskey, and assure the House, that what Mr Haughey is saying is correct. That was the clear intention of those who negotiated and drafted those paragraphs.

Mr Alex Maskey: I know that Mr Durkan was involved in those negotiations, but so were we. This was not our intention, though it may have been his and the intention of others. I need clarification on that. He is entitled to his opinion.

Mr Mark Durkan: I note Mr Maskey’s point, but I have no recollection of Sinn Féin’s involving itself in that point of the negotiations whatsoever. Sinn Féin did make a case in relation to the Equality Commission. Some of us pointed out that the provisions for the Equality Commission on its own were not enough. The Equality Commission is outside this House, and so too are the courts, so we cannot rely on them. We said that we needed an equality provision that would allow the House to test whether the Equality Commission had been given full information on any particular measure.
At any time when a Petition of Concern is raised that a measure be tested in terms of its impact on equality or rights, this Ad Hoc Committee will be able to examine the matter and call for all relevant persons, including people from the Equality Commission and the Departments, and papers. It will really be quite powerful. You, Mr Speaker, in a former life, knew something of the provenance of this matter and were involved in the negotiations on it.
This was designed to be an ad hoc measure because we believed that, depending on what the issues were, parties would want to put different people forward who had expertise in particular sectoral matters, be that expertise economic, social, legal or whatever. We thought that the parties would want to pick horses for courses precisely because there would have to be thorough investigations and that this would allow them to put their most specialised people to work. In fact, it was envisaged that there might be several versions of this Committee at any given time, several Ad Hoc Committees, created by this special procedure, to examine different measures. This was not seen as downgrading equality proofing in any way. It was actually seen as adding to it and substantiating it in a way that would make its work transparent and effective to the House. It was aimed at complementing all the other equality measures and not, as Mr Maskey wrongly suggests, downgrading them.

Mr Jim Wilson: I am grateful to Members for their contributions. However, I remain convinced that a Standing Committee with a fixed membership is not the best way in which to proceed. The Assembly must set up a special Ad Hoc Committee which can draw on the expertise which is in this Chamber as the need arises. I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Speaker: A change to Standing Orders requires cross-community support. If there is no dissent the motion will pass. If there is any dissent we will move to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 54, line 1, delete "Standing" and insert "Ad Hoc".

Mr David Ford: I beg to move the following motion:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"( )Committee of the Centre
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Committee of the Centre, to examine and report on the exercise of the executive functions carried out in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, other than those addressed by the Standing Committee on European Affairs, and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations, and on any other related matters determined by the Assembly.
(2) The Committee shall have the power to send for persons and papers.
(3) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
At this time of night Members may be gratified to know that my comments will be shorter than they might otherwise have been. This motion was put down because there is a gap in the Standing Orders.
Today we have debated the enormous range of functions which rest with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the centralisation that has taken place there. In effect, we now have joint Prime Ministers who are also heads of the largest single Department. This is not just because of Standing Orders. The Good Friday Agreement lays down procedures for Committees in paragraphs 9 and 10. It is sometimes forgotten that paragraph 8 says
"There will be a Committee for each of the main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration."
Some of us are concerned that this scrutiny function appears to have been lost. The more paranoid of us have been wondering what has happened to it. There are clear crossovers with other Departments. I am not sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who has just spoken, would be very happy if his areas of responsibility were subject to scrutiny while the Economic Policy Unit within the Committee of the Centre was not. The issues which we have already debated on equality, community relations, human rights and victims also need to be covered.
This motion has been put forward because a gap has opened up and some issues are not being properly covered. An amendment is to be moved which appears to my Colleagues and me broadly to cover our concerns. Given the frequency with which Standing Orders have already been amended, further amendments may be forthcoming. Having said that, I welcome the change.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all of paragraph(1) after "Committee of the" and insert
"Centre to examine and report on the following functions carried out in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and on any other related matters determined by the Assembly:
(a) Economic Policy Unit (other than the Programme of Government);
(b) Equality Unit;
(c) Civic Forum;
(d) European Affairs and International Matters;
(e) Community Relations;
(f) Public Appointments Policy;
(g) Freedom of Information;
(h) Victims;
(i) Nolan Standards;
(j) Public Service Office;
(k) Emergency Planning;
(l) Women’s Issues.
(2) This Committee shall replace the Standing Committees on European Affairs and Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. Standing Orders "Standing Committee on European Affairs" and "Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations" are, accordingly, revoked.
(3) The Committee shall consist of 17 Members."
This amendment, which relates to how the Assembly will scrutinise the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is in the names of David Trimble and myself.
It is clear that all sides in the Assembly agree that there should be scrutiny of the policy functions that fall within the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The Good Friday Agreement says
"There will be a Committee for each of the main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration".
It is important to note that the Good Friday Agreement refers to "a Committee".
The Assembly previously approved the creation of two non-Statutory Committees — one relating to equality, community relations and human rights, and the second to look at European matters. The motion on the Order Paper calls for a third Committee to examine the remaining functions of the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
The effect of the amendment would be to follow the practice which exists for all the other Departments and to create a single Committee to perform the scrutiny function for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, thus complying fully with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
The amendment proposes detailed and specific policy functions for which the Committee would have a scrutiny responsibility. In the debate on junior Ministers we made clear the importance that we attach to these policy functions. Issues such as equality, community relations and economic policy go to the very heart of the new institutions that have been established, and it is right and proper that the Assembly should be able to scrutinise those functions fully.
David Trimble and I have considered very carefully what was said in the debate that was held in the Assembly in March, when the Standing Orders were debated. In that debate there was widespread support for scrutiny of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Our proposals are designed to meet that concern.
It is important to recognise the difference between what we are proposing and the call for a third Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the motion. Our amendment clearly recognises a critical distinction.
That distinction is between the policy functions carried out by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the institutional roles which David Trimble and I play as a consequence of the positions we hold. It would be without parallel for Executive Committee business or any institutions relating to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be the subject of Assembly scrutiny.
It is essential that discussions in the Executive Committee or the negotiating positions for the Northern Ireland Administration in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council remain private. The Executive collectively, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister specifically, are accountable to the Assembly for those decisions and their ramifications. That accountability to the Assembly is critical, and it is one that we fully recognise.
The other key difference between our amendment and the motion is that we are seeking to remove the requirement placed on the Committees dealing with equality, community relations and human rights and European matters to examine only matters "referred to it".
The amendment to the proposed Standing Order is cast in the following terms:
"to examine and report on the following functions and on any other related matters determined by the Assembly".
In the amendment we are seeking to expand the role which the scrutiny Committee can play in relation to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and that would bring that Committee into line with the departmental Committees established for the Departments of all Members of the Executive Committee.
The amendment is fully reflective of the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to a committee to scrutinise the main Executive functions. It places the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the same footing as those of all the other Ministers and ensures that the Committee established to scrutinise the work of the Centre will operate in the same way as all the other Committees. It establishes very clearly the functions that the scrutiny Committee will cover.

Mr Peter Robinson: I detect some sleight of hand in what is being proposed.
The initial motion was put down on the basis of what the Assembly considered was the best option, and it had decided that two Committees should be set up. It decided, following the judgement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, that one Committee should deal with European matters and the other with equality issues.
I did not agree with that decision. My party made it clear to you, Mr Speaker, in a private meeting, that we felt that serious issues were arising from the First and Deputy First Ministers’ refusal to come forward with a proposal to cover other areas within their remit. We attempted to address this through a motion —and I think its terms would have been broadly acceptable to a number of parties, outside of those whose representatives were in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — and that would have dealt with all of the other matters that fall within the responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The amendment which we are discussing today produces, to me at least, a better structure — one in which it will be possible to have those responsibilities scrutinised. Having taken that step forward, however, and having suggested one Committee through which this can be comprehensively dealt with, they step back and, I regret to say, do not include in the amendment all of the functions that are their responsibility. That is to be regretted, and I hope that they will reconsider, even before this debate is over.
The division suggested by the Deputy First Minister is somewhat spurious. Any Minister could choose to distinguish between the type of functions that are operated in his or her Department. It would be very easy to say that the Committee should be allowed to look at the policy issues that we deal with but not at the administrative matters that are our responsibility. I do not think that that would be satisfactory to the Assembly in respect of any other Department, so why should it be so for the Department of the Centre?
It is apparent, from earlier discussions, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider that their Department has such a weighty burden that they need to draw in further assistance to help them carry it, that they have matters of significance and substance to deal with. But that is contrary to the kind of open government that many of us are arguing for. Only today, I said that we should move away from colonial-style government where you do not produce the facts, where you do not allow people to scrutinise a Department in detail. In effect, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are saying that their Department is different from the others, that only some of its functions may be scrutinised, but not all.
Speaking as a Minister, at least for the present, I admit that it is not comfortable to have to defend one’s policies and provide answers to questions from awkward people on the Committee — and I am not looking at anybody in particular — who want to get to the bottom of an issue that is important to them. But that is what a democracy is about. One should not be advocating policies that one cannot defend, whether it is to do with North/Southery or anything else.
In annex 1a of the report from the then First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) Members will see that they raised fewer than half of the number of issues that the Committee will be capable of scrutinising. That report itemised very clearly the various issues for which they were responsible. I expect that it did not take into account many of the other areas on which they will make their opinions known, express views and even take decisions, areas that we will never be able to address because as soon as the Chairman of the Committee wants to move from the issue that is before him to one that a Member raises, he will have to look at his remit. The remit states that the Committee of the Centre is only to examine and report on the specific functions that are laid down as subjects that the Committee is entitled to scrutinise. If the Committee goes outside those specific functions, it will be acting ultra vires, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will hold up their hands and say "I’m sorry, but it is not within your remit to look at those issues; you will have to have a special motion resolved by the Assembly in order to do that." The amendment is saying that the Assembly can deal with other issues, if it so determines, but that it will require a further vote in the Assembly, and a weighted vote at that.
I say to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it would be far better if they came clean on the issue and made themselves subject to the same kind of scrutiny that other Ministers will be subject to. It is in the interests of any Department to put forward its arguments on issues publicly and to stand over matters that it has been dealing with privately.
The Deputy First Minister advanced the argument that they could not talk about the private negotiations that go on on a North/South basis and so forth in a Committee and that they are subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly. Well, if the negotiations are so private, it might be a lot easier for them to talk to the Committee rather than to the Assembly in a public session. That might be an easier route for them to take.
This does look, at best, a little indecisive. Last week Members sat here and set up two Committees, and this week we are demolishing those two Committees and setting up a different one in their place. The public might just expect people to think a wee bit ahead of the game and not set up one thing one week and then try to get a new structure going in its place the following week. If they have this new flexibility, next week they will come and add on the other 12 or 13 subject matters that they have not included in the amendment today.
I say, most assuredly, that this matter will not go away. They are not going to get off with it. They are going to be scrutinised, and if they are not scrutinised in a Committee, they will be scrutinised here. And it would be far better for scrutiny to be done in the atmosphere of a Committee, where we can lay the facts open and have proper discussion, than in the Assembly.
Clearly there are matters that the legislation enables the Assembly to deal with in open session, particularly North/South matters. But in spite of what the legislation says there is a plethora of issues in the report from the then First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) that have not been included.
I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to think again. If they are not prepared to do that today, and to include all the areas over which they have responsibility for scrutiny, we shall put down a substantive motion to have them included. We cannot amend their amendment, so we cannot do that today, but we will do it at the earliest possible opportunity and continue to bring this issue up until it is properly addressed.
The public have a right to be certain that not just 10 Ministers but all Ministers will be subject to this kind of scrutiny. Many of them are likely to ask "What have these two guys got to fear? Let them stand on their own feet in exactly the same way as every other Minister and be answerable in the same way as every other Minister. They should not be different."

Mr Conor Murphy: A Chathaoirligh, it is important to trace the history of this Committee of the Centre. There was a huge amount of discussion and consternation in the Standing Orders Committee when it was discovered that there was what was described as a gap in the legislation and no provision for a Statutory Committee to scrutinise the Centre. We got the NIO Minister, Mr Paul Murphy, in to discuss ways of attempting to plug the gap through legislation in the House of Commons, but we were unsuccessful.
The urgency to resolve the matter increased greatly in December 1998 when the determination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appeared to "pack out" the Centre. This was reinforced by their positions at that time. We had not opposed the absence of a Committee on Equality in the 10 Departments that were agreed, but we were keen to see proper scrutiny of the Centre.
Various solutions were suggested in the Standing Orders Committee to deal with the issue. One of those was to spread scrutiny of the Centre over a number of Committees, and I felt that there was general agreement on that. The motions that were passed by the Standing Orders Committee suggested that a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations, a Committee on European Affairs, and a sort of catch-all Committee to deal with the other matters that rested with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be established.
I understand from the minutes of the Standing Orders Committee that the joint Chairmen and the Clerk of the Standing Orders Committee were mandated in July to present a proposal for a Committee of the Centre. At a previous sitting of the Assembly, we agreed to set up the Committee for Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and the Committee for European Affairs. Surprisingly, the draft Order Paper for that sitting proposed a Committee of the Centre in the name of one of the then Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee, yet that proposal was withdrawn from the Order Paper itself.
There is an element of farce in that at which the DUP has rightly poked fun, but I note that it does not express any regret at the potential loss, given the terms of the amendment, of the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. That should strike home on this side of the House.
Today we have had a proposal, which has been dropped, and an amendment relating to a Committee of the Centre, and neither came from the Standing Orders Committee, where such was supposed to originate. Indeed, the amendment came from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is a matter of concern that the Standing Orders Committee was mandated to do this and did not. I believe that there has been a welter of confusion over Standing Orders. As a member of the Committee, I accept the criticism from Members about its way of doing business in the months before the transfer of power. In spite of that there are greater concerns about the amendment from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Denis Haughey: I was one of the Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee, yet I am hearing for the first time about this welter of confusion. It is amazing that no one was aware of it during our work.

Mr Conor Murphy: The welter of confusion arose from the fact that several motions were tabled, some of them in the name of both former Chairmen of the Committee. One was in the name of just one of the Chairmen, and it was withdrawn. If that is not confusing, I do not know what is.

Mr Denis Haughey: Does the withdrawal of one motion constitute a welter? Does that conform to the ordinary understanding of everyday English — a welter of confusion?

Mr Conor Murphy: I was on the Standing Orders Committee and also on the Business Committee, and I suggest that Mr Haughey read some of the Business Committee minutes in which he will see what that Committee thought of the performance of the Standing Order Committees in recent months.
We have other concerns about the proposal from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and not just because the detailed proposal on how the Department of the Centre would be scrutinised by the Assembly comes from the Department which is the subject of that scrutiny. We are also concerned because half of the items on the long list of the Department’s functions are omitted from the list given by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in their amendment.
What concerns me most is the proposal in the amendment to scrap the Committees that we established last week. They are the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee and the Committee for European Affairs. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hubbub is beginning to get above what is reasonable. The Member who is speaking must be given a hearing.

Mr Conor Murphy: I turn to the debate that arose from the determination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 18 January, when the current Minister of Higher and Further Education said, in relation to equality,
"We believe that the Assembly should assist in this task by the establishment of a special Committee to scrutinise equality."
That was reinforced by Mr Nesbitt, who will be a beneficiary of today’s proceedings. He said
"Indeed, we believe there is a case for a Scrutiny Committee to deal with this aspect of rights and equality."
It was intended then to have a Committee to scrutinise the equality functions at the Centre. Suddenly today, without any notice and regardless of any discussion and agreement in the Standing Orders Committee, in the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer and in the Business Committee, the SDLP and the UUP, as represented by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, have changed their minds on the issue.
Given that these gentlemen have spent most of the evening trying to convince us that the remit of the Department of the Centre is so vast that four Ministers are needed to cover it adequately, we must question the logic of their proposal to reduce the number of Committees scrutinising that Department from three to one. The suspicion that they do not want proper scrutiny of their Department is hard to avoid.
The net effect of today’s business is likely to be less scrutiny, less accountable Government and the downgrading of equality. Contrary to Mr Mallon’s suggestion, that is not the vision of politics that underpinned the Good Friday Agreement. It should be rejected to allow us to proceed, as we agreed some months ago, with proper scrutiny of all the functions of the Executive. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: I oppose the amendment. As Mr Peter Robinson and Mr Conor Murphy have said, we are surprised by its introduction. For about 18 months it was understood and accepted that the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations were necessary and would be set up. The effect of the amendment would be to revoke the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and, as MrPeter Robinson has said, to reduce the amount of scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. Fewer than half the matters for which it is responsible would be subject to scrutiny.
There is a dire need for the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee, and the best example of that need is to be found in yesterday’s appointment of people to advisory boards. The Deputy First Minister has said that equality goes to the very heart of our institutions. Where was the gender balance when those board members were appointed? For example, Trade Business and Development has 12 members, of whom four are women; Food Safety has 11 members, of whom two are women; the North/South Language body has 16 members, of whom five are women; and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights body has 12 members, of whom two are women.
If we are serious about equality why was more effort not made to ensure that there was a gender balance? That would have given a much needed example of the new Government’s attitude to equality. Equality and women’s issues should be at the heart of the practice and not just the words of this institution. They are not political points to be scored. That was not the case with appointments to these bodies.
Europe is our future and European affairs cut across every Department. I have often heard complaints about the Dublin Government’s interfering in our affairs, but people forget that since 1973 the Dublin Government, along with the French Government and the German Government, have been setting the price of our butter. This interference in our affairs has been happening since we joined the European Union. European affairs affect every policy area, and it is very important that we have a Committee on European Affairs to cover that. This has always been accepted in the Assembly, and I do not understand the logic of this amendment to eradicate these two Committees.
The most important point, and one that Mr Peter Robinson has raised, is that the effect of this amendment would be to leave 13 out of the 26 areas for which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are responsible with no scrutiny whatsoever. The North/South Ministerial Council would not be covered, nor would the British/Irish Council and key issues relating to the machinery of government. Liaison with the Secretary of State and the International Fund for Ireland would not be covered, and information services, which are vital to the machinery of government, would have no scrutiny whatsoever. Neither would there be scrutiny of cross-departmental co-ordination, the Assembly Ombudsman, the Policy Innovation Unit and the awarding of honours.
It would be wrong of the Assembly to accept this amendment on the grounds that there should be openness and transparency. Committees should be able to scrutinise all areas of government. We need a Committee on European Affairs, a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations and a Committee of the Centre, covering all the Centre’s responsibilities. That is the way forward.

Mr David Ervine: I oppose the amendment and therefore support the motion. I am dismayed by today’s affairs. I do not wish to believe that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are naïve, but it is the best option open to me. The only alternative is to think, as has been suggested, that there has been a sleight of hand. We agreed to have two Committees and to generate a third to cover the remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers’ Department. Substantial portions of the report they produced when they were, as Mr Robinson said, "Designate" are absent. The fact that there has been no consultation about this and the immediacy with which they have landed pieces of paper on this Table are bound to give people cause for concern.
A malaise is creeping in. Whether it is because of the amount of patronage there is for some Members or the benefits of creating junior Ministers, with which we agree, I do not know — we are just not happy with what is happening because we have not been told enough about it. This behaviour is arrogant and in the nature of big parties. Members can see from Hansard that we have talked about the fear of patronage before. We have also talked about the lack of inclusion, and the big parties are inclined to get carried away with that.
I am not advocating that anyone from a small party like ours should be the chairman of such a committee, but I am saying very clearly that unless there is consultation, there will not be support. If something were to be done which seemed either naïve or shifty — and I would prefer it to seem naïve — I would be inclined to believe that it was neither if someone were reasonable enough to discuss it. Each issue has to come to the Floor of the House. The requirement for cross-community support may or may not make a difference this evening, but it will at some point in the future. Let the two large parties who are responsible for this — and they will no doubt support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — be warned that if it is to be the nature of things in the future, we will not support matters about which we are unclear or which are designed for the benefit of the big parties alone. In that respect today’s proceedings have not been good, and we will undoubtedly support the motion.

Mr Robert McCartney: What we are experiencing today is not the fundamental sickness that will affect the Assembly, but merely some of the symptoms of that sickness. The Assembly was founded on unique and undemocratic principles. Such principles were imported because it was said that Northern Ireland was a unique place for which the ordinary principles of democracy were unsuited, and that is why the Belfast Agreement created the sort of institution that we have here. Ministers were elected on a peculiar and unique system — the d’Hondt system. It is unique in British parliamentary experience. It may be suitable for some German Länder, but it is not suitable here.
There is an absence of democracy in the sense that there is no Government and no Opposition — an Opposition that could hope that by persuading the electorate of the defects of the current Government it would one day enter into Government in their place. Such an Opposition would have had the task of questioning and examining, on the Floor of the Assembly, the workings of the Government. Instead of that, we have the consensus arrangement under which the four major parties divided up the 10 ministerial offices among them and, together with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, control the Executive. If this continues, subject to the present position of the DUP, the vast majority of the Assembly will always be in Government with a few minor parties hanging about, perhaps least of all my own, such as the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party, the United Unionists, and, to a lesser extent, Sinn Féin and the DUP. Essentially, the Executive is controlled by two parties which, with a little assistance from their friends from time to time, can deliver the Nationalist and the Unionist vote in accordance with the principles on which the Executive has been erected.
Therein lies the problem. To counterbalance the overwhelming power of the Executive, which is centred on the two major parties, we were to have a series of scrutinising Committees. Again, the overwhelming membership of those Committees would come from the four major parties that constitute the Executive. At an early stage in the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, I pointed out that Standing Orders would have to be very zealous in protecting the Assembly against an over-mighty Executive. I and other members of the Committee will recall that Dr Farren, who is now the Minister of Higher Education, suggested that the plenary sessions of the Assembly should be held on two days a month as all other business would be conducted in Committees and by the Executive. Plenary sessions were seen to be an irritation to the backside. That was the extent to which the Assembly was to be reduced, and one has to superimpose the party system on all that.
Under this amendment, the Assembly can deal with any other related matters, as determined by the Assembly, as well as with the 50% of the matters in the Annex that are excluded from the scrutiny of the Committee of the Centre. What will happen when it is decided to have a vote on whether a matter should be sent to that Committee? The SDLP will follow its leader, and the UUP will try to screw up enough support to carry it through if voting is on the basis of a majority decision. The two of them will organise their Members to vote down any proposal from the rest of us to have such a matter sent to the Scrutiny Committee for examination. The distribution of patronage and the organising of those on the payroll are part and parcel of the means by which Executives in every country control their legislatures.
One of the difficulties about Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, is that its role is being totally reduced. There is an elite in the Executive and a collection of Lobby fodder in Parliament. Because they are part of the hierarchical party system, they want to keep their noses clean to ensure that they will progress up the greasy pole to the ultimate position. They go through the Lobby, although most of them do not know which Lobby to go through and have to be directed by the Whips. The Executive is exercising more and more control and is reducing the plenary sessions of Parliament to a ghastly joke.
Under that arrangement, however, there is at least an Opposition. There is still the hope that somewhere along the line the Opposition will become the Government, as happened to Labour. Therefore there is at least some examination, if only out of self-interest. Where is the self-interest here? The self-interest, if any, lies between the two major parties.
I must make it plain that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office knew this all along. Those Members of the Women’s Coalition who ululated when this great thing was brought into being, those Members of the PUP who were conned — some of them were told that, in other circumstances, they would be world statesmen — are, in effect, no longer necessary to the propagation of this scheme. So far as the Centre is concerned, the Women’s Coalition may go on about its equality agenda, women’s rights and Europe, and MsMorrice can talk about butter and all the rest of it, but the truth is that the Women’s Coalition is a pain in the butt to those who really want to get on with the business of running this Government. Those people do not want to be faced with the idea that one or other of the smaller parties could be heading a Committee that was going to give the ruling parties any trouble. That is the truth. [Interruption]
9.15 pm
I hear Mr Ervine muttering about patronage in North Down. There is no patronage in North Down. I am not looking for anything from the Government by way of financial remuneration, and I am bitterly opposed in principle to the honours system, so I am not concerned with that.
Let us get back to the main issue which is that this amendment relates to the ever-increasing centralisation of power within the Executive and within the control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is why the smaller parties are being excluded from this. That is why, through working the party system, they will be able to prevent the smaller parties from ever bringing any matter to be scrutinised by this Committee. This is all about Executive power against the power which Members, as a body, hope to exercise in plenary sessions. All of this is related to matters which we discussed last week and this week — matters such as patronage, with more than 50% of Assembly Members on the payroll at a salary above their normal one.
It makes you begin to wonder who is dispensing this patronage. Who will decide who is to be a Whip? Who will, as happened this morning, decide who will be a junior Minister and for what? The Executive, not the Members. While we have this fundamentally flawed, allegedly consensual arrangement, effective scrutiny Committees under the control of the Assembly will be vital. If those at the very centre of power can, by this amendment, exclude matters from the scrutiny of the Assembly or its Committees — and they are effectively excluding them from both — the Members’ function is thereby diminished.
Members should think very carefully about the fundamentals of this. Why are Members here? Are they really here to be Lobby fodder for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Are they motivated by what is best for the people of Northern Ireland or are they motivated by party loyalties alone, or are they, from time to time perhaps, motivated by a mixture of party loyalties and self-interest?
I have heard the allegation made that it is all right for Bob McCartney — he is not worried about his salary or this or that. That may or may not be true, but it does invest me with the capacity to stand here, owing nothing to any man and wanting nothing from any man, and say what needs to be said. It is time the Assembly and its Members started taking note, or are they all going to be placemen and placewomen?
I listened to the Members from the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, and behind all their talk about Europe and women’s rights was the suggestion that both were admirably fitted to be a Chairperson in charge of the question of Europe or women’s rights. The talk about inclusivity is because the smaller parties — and the Women’s Coalition in particular — are being excluded from office. That is what this is all about.
All of this, however, is cloaked with the appearance that they are very concerned about these things. Their concern makes me smile, not at the subject matter of their concerns, which are very real, but at the way in which these Ladies are presenting them, a way which any intellectual feminist abandoned 20 years ago. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I do not want to repeat what my Colleague Mr Conor Murphy has already said. However, I have to put on record my disappointment at events in the House tonight.
The Assembly has moved from our position in the Good Friday Agreement, which suggested that we have a dedicated Department of Equality, to talking about and rejecting the suggestion that we have a dedicated junior Minister for equality. It has moved from talking about and rejecting a standing committee to scrutinise equality, human rights and community relations to lumping the equality unit into the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, where it will be swallowed up entirely.
Inequality, discrimination, community relations and human rights have now been shifted again, and we must question the agenda which is driving the debate in the House tonight. The inequalities which have existed for years were what prompted me to enter politics in the first place, and I am disgusted that every attempt to scrutinise the delivery of equality in our society is being thwarted. Go raibh maith agat.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is my job to wind up the debate on this issue, and I hope to be brief.
I wish to touch on some of the contributions which have been made, and, first of all, I shall touch on the penultimate contribution — that made by MrMcCartney. It was interesting to listen to the Member contrast the operation of parliamentary principles, as they are known at Westminster, with our practice here. I do not intend to follow him into the detail of that. Rather, I wish to note the contrast between the differences he drew and the fact that he treated Assembly Members here in exactly the same way as he treats Members of Parliament at Westminster. If he continues to do that, he will have as many friends in this Assembly as he has at Westminster. [Interruption]
Moving on to the points of substance that were made by other Members, specifically Ms Morrice and MrCMurphy, I expressed concern about the rationalisation that these proposals are to bring about. It is fair to say that over the months — indeed, years — a number of different proposals have been made on scrutiny of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the responsibilities within it, and a number of Members here have changed their positions on the matter.
We should acknowledge that we have arrived at what I think is the best outcome. We are not abandoning scrutiny on equality issues, European issues or other issues, but we are consolidating them on a better basis. Mr Robinson acknowledged this because he conceded that this amendment will produce a better structure, and I agree. By way of criticism, Mr Robinson also suggested that we are attempting to treat the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister more favourably than other Ministers and that some matters will not receive scrutiny. That is not a valid criticism. We have to draw a distinction, as the amendment tries to do, between the process by which policy is formulated and the question of a policy’s merits, how it is implemented and what its consequences are.
In all systems, the process by which policy is evolved and the discussions which take place with officials are free from scrutiny. That is also true of other Departments. I am certain that Mr Robinson, together with his ministerial colleagues, will respond in the same way as we are responding if his Committee asks what advice he received from officials and what matters were considered when he was formulating policy.
The Deputy First Minister made the point when he was introducing this matter. He said
"It is essential that discussions which take place in the Executive Committee, or the negotiating positions for the Northern Ireland Administration in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council should remain private."
The amendment provides for that. It also provides for the scrutiny of all of the significant functions in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister which have any Executive character and does so in a much more rational and coherent manner than previous proposals.
It is a pity that it came through late. However, this reflects the fact that over the past few weeks we have had a flurry of items to focus on in the operation of our Office. I apologise to Members that the amendment was tabled at such short notice. This was largely because we were able to focus on the matter only last night, when we started to look at its implications. The amendment evolved after consultations with some Members. I concede that not all Members were consulted.

Mr Peter Robinson: First, having listened to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I am not convinced that there is a distinction between the policy issues and the outworking of those issues in their Office that is any way different from that of any of the other Departments. Every Department has policy and strategic issues, and there is an outworking of those policies. Ministers will be questioned, interrogated, and turned upside down on all of those issues — and rightly so.
I do not think that there will be any such distinction either in the minds of those on the Committees. They will be able to ask us how we arrived at our decisions, and in many instances they will have taken part in our arriving at them. In formulating our decisions we will have to seek advice, and, under legislation, we will be given advice by the Committees. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be denied that advice by excluding these matters from the remit of their Committee.
Secondly, by excluding those matters, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister know that they are taking one significant power away, and that is the power to require papers to be produced. That cannot be done in the Assembly, but it can be done in Committee if the excluded matters are included in the Committee’s remit.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I return to the point that I made earlier. The distinction, which the Minister is trying to blur, does exist. It is to be found in the Deputy First Minister’s comment which I quoted earlier. It is essential that discussions which take place in the Executive or the negotiating positions which we adopt — regardless of whether they be for the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, or Brussels — remain private. That was our central concern when we framed this amendment.
We have provided for effective scrutiny to cover all the concerns that were expressed by Ms Morrice, Mr Murphy and Mr Ervine. I am quite confident that we have in this amendment a more coherent, better and more effective procedure for scrutiny than we would have had in the provisions that were otherwise evolving.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Ford to make his winding-up speech.

Mr David Ford: I was expecting Mr Peter Robinson to speak.

Mr Speaker: I am content to call Mr Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am reluctant to speak for a third time on the issue, but if you insist, Mr Speaker, I shall do so. My speaking a short time ago was little more than an intervention, but since the First Minister allowed me to make it, it was valid. I also note that he did not bother to respond to it, which shows how worthwhile it must have been.
I accept — and I made this very clear during my remarks — that in structural terms there are significant advantages in having all issues dealt with in one Committee. Some of those who wish to see three Committees instead of one would regret that before too long, since there would be an overlapping of functions.
The key issue, on which all of those who have spoken against the amendment are united, is that all the functions of the Department must be scrutinised, whether by one Committee or three. If I am asked to choose whether I would rather have one Committee dealing with half of the matters or three Committees dealing with them all, I will opt for the latter. We should not, however, be forced to choose.
I offered the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister an opportunity to place the rest of their responsibilities under the Committee’s remit so that we could deal with them all in the proper, structured way suggested. Unfortunately, they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, and, regardless of the arithmetic at the end of today’s debate, it is simply not going to wash.
Issues will arise. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may feel that they are avoiding them by not having all their responsibilities included in this remit. It is, however, a feature of all deliberative Chambers that they have in them people of sufficient ingenuity to ensure that such matters are raised again and again. However, it is far better to do it in some structured way such as in a Committee than have it come out through cracks in the system, which would be most unfortunate for the whole running of the Assembly.
I cannot read the mind of the Member who moved the motion, but I detect from what people have been saying that a number of them are not content with the amendment and intend to vote against it. I hope that they will do so in sufficient numbers to allow the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to recognise that they are not carrying the House with them. When we are dealing with the very structures of business, it is not sufficient to have a mere majority. Policy issues differ from those of structure in that, with a policy issue, one can get away with a mere majority. One can operate the policy. However, one cannot expect people to work on an ongoing basis within a structure that does not have the consent of a significant number of this Assembly’s Members — it will simply not work.
They should learn the lesson, sooner rather than later, that they do not have the mind of the Assembly on this issue yet. If they were prepared to set up two Committees last week, only to dump them this week and set up another, then, before too long, if they do not accept the burden of what is in the motion, they will have to return to the Assembly to seek sufficient consensus. I trust that they will take this on board.
This is not a matter of looking for opportunities to snap at the heels of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — though for some that might be the case. The reality is that this would be good for democracy. It would give people an opportunity to get off their chests all the issues which burden them and, more importantly, burden the people outside. If they are not given vent within a democratic structure, they will be given vent outside in an undemocratic fashion. It is up to democrats to make sure that the opportunity for this is given within the structures of the democracy, rather than allow it to be pushed out where it will adopt a more unseemly face. I trust that they will think again. Even if they win the vote today, they will have to return to this issue before too long.
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 53; Noes 32.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Other
Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Nationalist
Michelle Gildernew, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Sue Ramsey.
Unionist
Paul Berry, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Other
Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice.
Total Votes 85 Total Ayes 53 (62.4%)
Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 23 (71.9%)
Unionist Votes 47 Unionist Ayes 26 (55.3%).
Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Were all Members aware of the correct Lobby to go through? There appeared to be some confusion in the Alliance Party.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members are still learning, but I have no doubt that they were fully aware of how they were voting.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As Speaker and as a psychiatrist, do you deal with political schizophrenia, and would you counsel some of your own party members?

Mr Speaker: When I come to this Chair I must leave all my other attachments to the side — for the sake of my sanity, if nothing else.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 52; Noes 33.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Other
Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Nationalist
Michelle Gildernew, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Sue Ramsey.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Maurice Morrow, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Others
Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice.
Total Votes 85 Total Ayes 52 (61.2%)
Nationalist Votes 31 Nationalist Ayes 22 (71.0%)
Unionist Votes 48 Unionist Ayes 26 (54.2%)
Main Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).
Resolved:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"( ) Committee of the Centre
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly, to be known as the Committee of the Centre, to examine and report on the following functions carried out in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and on any other related matters determined by the Assembly:
(a) Economic Policy Unit (other than the Programme of Government);
(b) Equality Unit;
(c) Civic Forum;
(d) European Affairs and International Matters;
(e) Community Relations;
(f) Public Appointments Policy;
(g) Freedom of Information;
(h) Victims;
(i) Nolan Standards;
(j) Public Service Office;
(k) Emergency Planning; and
(l) Women’s Issues.
(2) This Committee shall replace the Standing Committees on European Affairs and Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. Standing Orders ‘Standing Committee on European Affairs’ and ‘Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations’ are, accordingly, revoked.
(3) The Committee shall consist of 17 Members.
(4) The Committee shall have the power to send for persons and papers.
(5) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
The sitting was suspended at 10.00 pm.